Lundgren’s lawyers were fired on September 25 for quite disloyalty, having counteracted and harmed their client’s case, by choosing to cooperate with defendant Jyske Bank A / S, in a real estate transaction for DKK 600 million.
–
Partner Dan Terkildsen, who also works as an arbitration judge, does not believe there is anything wrong with receiving millions in fees from Jyske Bank, which Lundgren’s lawyers for the client should file a “fraud case” SVIG case against.
That Lundgren’s lawyers after receiving, by Jyske Bank’s millions, did not want our allegations of fraud, is presented to the court.
Lundgren’s lawyers can’t see anything wrong with that.
Dan Terkildsen, a partner in Lundgrens, explains that using such strong words as fraud in court is against good practice.
And Lundgrens has thus tried to manipulate the client’s claims, so that the client should not discover that, Lundgren’s attorneys would not submit any of the client’s allegations of fraud and fraud against Jyske bank A / S
When Lundgren’s lawyers received millions of dollars to help the counterparty in a case, and subsequently counteracted the client.
It seems that:
LUNDGREN’S ADVOCATES HAVE ACCEPTED Bribery.
–
We are therefore looking for a good and tough lawyer who is not afraid of Jyske bank, and would like to present how Jyske bank deliberately does fraud business, something more lawyers are contributing to, or just covering.
Should be found.
–
Looks like LUNDGRENS BY JYSKE BANK HAS BEEN CUTTED
IT LOOKS LIKE CORRUPTION WHEN LUNDGREN’S ADVOCATES HAVE RECEIVED MILLIONS FROM JYSKE BANK AND SO THE SIDE HAS BEEN MODELED CLIENT’S CASE AGAINST #JYSKEBANK FOR FRAUD
See more at BANKNYT dk
dkpol #dkfinans #finans #news
–
Lundgrens Advokatpartnerselskab by Partner Dan Terkildsen
Got our case against Jyske bank A / S for Fraud and False on February 5, 2018
Lundgren’s attorneys v. Dan Terkildsen ask if we think Jyske bank has done everything on purpose.
Which we confirm, since no one can make that much mistake.
–
Lundgren’s lawyers “Dan Terkildsen” say that they / Lundgrens have no problem leading our allegations against Jyske bank for fraud.
–
The problem with Lundgren’s lawyer partner company is that the lawyers directly against the client’s instructions have not presented any of the client’s claims, such as fraud, fraud, exploitation, deception etc.
–
Lundgren’s lawyers who got the case on February 5, 2018 against Jyske bank A / S
Votes in the period, March to June 2018, that is, just after Lundgren’s lawyers agree to lead our allegations of fraud against Jyske bank
In fact, just two months after Lundgrens undertakes to lead our fraud and fraud case, against Jyske bank, the same Jyske Bank offers that Lundgrens can advise Jyske bank in a transaction for DKK 600,000,000 “DKK 600 million”
–
As Lundgren’s lawyers choose to thank Jyske bank for the million task, and then at the same time Lundgrens fails to bring our case against Jyske bank for fraud.
Does it look like corruption, or bribery.
Bribery / Corruption where Jyske Bank has in secret paid Lundgren’s lawyers in the form of million fees, for not having to submit our claims against Jyske Bank for fraud, and to withhold, the client’s information to the court.
–
And then having to withhold information about Jyske Bank’s board member and lawyer, who has repeatedly lied to the court, which the client has discovered and presented to Lundgren’s lawyers.
Well, instead of handling the client’s allegations, Lundgrens has chosen to ignore the client’s claims, and deliberately chooses to work against their own client, the client’s case is only growing.
Corruption / bribery here is that Lundgren’s lawyers at Jyske Bank have received one million fees to advise Jyske bank.
It is stressed that this is how it looks.
–
Dan Terkildsen does not see that there is anything wrong in helping Jyske bank in the case of 1/2 billion kroner, and at the same time should bring a case against Jyske bank for million fraud, which Dan Terkelsen then also denies, and in September 2019 says that it is against good practice to use the word SVIG in court.
–
But perhaps Lundgrens has another explanation as to why the lawyer firm has directly countered that the client’s claims that Jyske bank is doing fraudulent business have not been presented.
If that is not because Lundgren’s lawyers have made an agreement with Jyske bank to stop Lundgren’s client’s claims against Jyske bank for fraud and false claims being presented to the court.
–
The problem is that instead of 18 months, Lundgrens has directly resisted presenting their client’s claims against Jyske bank for fraud.
Not only have Lundgren’s lawyers countered our case, but planned to attend the main hearing without including our allegations.
Suppose Lundgren’s lawyers have received millions in fees from Jyske Bank, who thank you for not submitting our allegations of fraud against Jyske Bank to court.
This fee is included in the advice ten