A real-estate company at the centre of a complex dispute
Promaxima Immobilien AG, described in the source material as a Swiss-listed company focused on developing, acquiring and managing income-producing real estate, is presented as the centre of a web of shareholdings, family ties, unpaid claims and disputed asset transfers.
The key figures named are Hans Peter Buchschacher, Hakan Solak and Laetitia Riedel. The source claims that Buchschacher and the Riedel side together control more than 50 per cent of the voting shares. The original text characterises this as potential “acting in concert”. Whether that would in fact constitute a regulatory breach cannot be determined from the materials currently available.
The allegedly unpaid shareholding
One central issue concerns a Promaxima stake reportedly held by Buchschacher through ROHO Holding AG. According to the source material, those shares were never fully paid for. A former investor or owner is said to be seeking more than CHF 3 million and considering civil and criminal action. For shareholders, that point matters. If a major stake has not been economically settled, questions arise over the durability of the ownership structure and whether third-party claims may attach to the shares.
The role of the Riedel structure
The source material links the Riedel family of Kufstein to Promaxima and states that the family holds just under 34 per cent of the company. It also identifies Luxembourg-based TCA Tyrol Crystal Assets as a central company within the wider Riedel structure.
According to the source, TCA’s balance sheet shows a strained financial position and lists a CHF 9.8 million mortgage note over a property in the canton of Solothurn as a major asset. MirNews has not, for the purpose of his rewrite, been provided with the original balance sheets or registry records, so these points are reported as claims made in the source material.
The CHF 9.8 million mortgage note
That mortgage note is the core of the dispute. The source values the underlying property at approximately CHF 23 million and states that at least CHF 13 million of senior bank mortgages are outstanding, in addition to the CHF 9.8 million note.
On those assumptions, only a narrow residual value would remain. That arithmetic is not a substitute for a current valuation or a legal ranking analysis. The decisive questions are the property’s true market value, the ranking of the mortgages and the precise rights attached to the note.
How did the note move to TCA?
The source alleges that Promaxima’s board approved two economically significant steps in a non-public meeting: first, the waiver of nearly CHF 2 million in loans allegedly owed by Buchschacher to Promaxima; and second, the transfer of the CHF 9.8 million mortgage note to TCA Tyrol Crystal Assets. If accurate, the transaction would raise questions about market terms, voting, conflicts of interest and disclosure to minority shareholders. The original article portrays the transaction as a major shift of value away from other investors. That conclusion, however, would require examination of board minutes, valuations, contracts and corporate-law analysis.
Allegations of share-price manipulation
The source material also alleges that Promaxima’s share price was deliberately influenced in the past. It names a former family office and a banker in the canton of Zug and states that the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, FINMA, opened proceedings.
MirNews has not independently confirmed that specific claim through a FINMA notice or official case file based on the material available here. Such confirmation would be necessary before presenting the allegation as an established fact.
For the economic analysis, the source does describe one clear development: Promaxima’s shares allegedly fell from double-digit Swiss-franc levels to penny-stock territory. The material does not allow a reliable attribution of the decline to any single cause.
Serious allegations concerning the chairman
The source further contains serious criminal allegations concerning Hans Peter Buchschacher, including references to previous convictions and a pending case involving aggravated arson. It also describes earlier accusations involving fabricated videos, alleged extortion attempts and misleading information provided to investors. These are highly sensitive claims. MirNews does not present them as established facts. Before publication, judgments, indictments or official statements from the relevant law-enforcement authorities would need to be reviewed.
Retail shareholders at risk
For shareholders, the practical question is what value remains once senior claims are deducted. The source presents a scenario in which a substantial part of the value of a key property could be encumbered by bank financing and the CHF 9.8 million mortgage note.
That brings the focus back to whether transactions between Promaxima and entities connected to major shareholders may have weakened the economic position of minority investors. This is the core public-interest issue: not the lifestyle of individual participants, but whether the assets of a listed company were managed transparently, lawfully and in the interests of all shareholders.
The questions that remain
A credible investigation now depends on documentary answers. Who controlled Promaxima at each relevant point in time? Were major shareholdings fully paid? What consideration did Promaxima receive for the mortgage-note transfer? Were conflicts of interest disclosed? What were minority shareholders told, and when?
And which of the regulatory and criminal proceedings described in the source material exist in the form alleged? MirNews will distinguish between verifiable transactions and unproven accusations. Only original records, registry data, court files and responses from the people concerned can turn the current set of allegations into a reliable factual record.
