Advertisement
Germany’s real estate crowdfunding sector has been dealt a severe blow with the insolvency of EV Digital Invest AG, one of its most prominent platforms. The company—known to investors under the Engel & Völkers Digital Invest brand—filed for insolvency proceedings under its own administration last week after a €1.03m loan payment from its majority shareholder, the pension fund of the Berlin Dental Association (VZB), was withheld at short notice.
The listed Berlin-based firm, which had raised over €230m for more than 100 real estate and energy projects since its founding, described the funding refusal as both sudden and unjustified. In a sharply worded public statement, the EV Digital Invest management board accused VZB of “wilful breach of contract” and a “violation of fiduciary duty”, arguing that the loan had been contractually agreed and essential for meeting a one-off liability linked to investor settlement agreements.
At the heart of the dispute is a wider narrative now unfolding across the crowdfunding landscape—one in which platform fragility, investor litigation, and opaque shareholder dynamics are coming into sharper focus.
The VZB, which has come under fire in recent months over failed investments and internal governance struggles, has rejected all allegations of wrongdoing. In its response to the crisis, the fund stated that the disputed loan represented a “highly speculative, illiquid” investment into a company still undergoing restructuring and thus fell outside its permissible capital investment remit.
According to VZB, its legal team had concluded that the relevant agreements violated supervisory and statutory requirements. A Berlin court has now backed that view: on 4 July, the Berlin Regional Court II rejected EVDI’s urgent application to force payment, judging the loan agreement to be legally invalid after summary review.
For EV Digital Invest, the outcome is catastrophic. After struggling through several difficult years marked by property market instability, the company said it had made meaningful operational progress. It pointed to its 2024 financing of 13 projects totalling over €22m as evidence that restructuring efforts were bearing fruit—at least until the withheld payment tipped it into insolvency.
Much of the disputed funding was earmarked for settlements tied to the long-running “Atelier-Wohnungen an der Burg II” project, where EVDI had faced allegations of misleading retail investors. While an initial down payment was made in May, the bulk of the agreed settlement amount had been due by end-June. Without access to the loan funds, the company was unable to meet its obligations. Three other project lawsuits remain pending.
While Engel & Völkers has been quick to clarify that it has no shareholding in the platform—despite its name appearing on all investor communications—the reputational damage may extend further. The prestige brand has already come under scrutiny for labour law violations at several of its regional licencees, with investigations still ongoing in parts of North Rhine-Westphalia.
For the crowdfunding sector, this insolvency may mark a decisive turning point. Until recently, EV Digital Invest was seen as a poster child for regulated, retail-accessible mezzanine capital, offering yields of 5%–7% in a professionally packaged, digital format. Its collapse now reveals how quickly such models can unravel when legal foundations are shaky and governance conflicts go unresolved.
The episode also raises broader concerns about the quality and enforceability of many crowdfunding arrangements. Most investor funds in this space take the form of subordinated loans (Nachrangdarlehen), which offer minimal protection in the event of borrower insolvency. In this case, investors are doubly exposed—first to the developer risks in the underlying projects, and now to the collapse of the platform itself.
Meanwhile, the decision of a professional pension fund to lend heavily to a platform already under financial pressure is itself likely to provoke scrutiny over fiduciary oversight and institutional governance. That the VZB has now walked away—backed by the courts—will do little to restore confidence in the model.
For retail investors, the fallout is already materialising in the form of delayed payments and the likelihood of capital losses. For other platforms—such as Exporo, Bergfürst, or the recently merged Zinsbaustein-WIWIN—there will now be renewed pressure to demonstrate stronger due diligence, higher project quality, and clearer separation between promotional branding and financial substance.
Pressure is likely to mount for BaFin to clarify the regulatory boundaries between retail-accessible mezzanine structures and professionally managed risk capital. Whether Germany’s crowdfunding model matures into a viable institutional product—or remains a speculative retail sideline—may now depend less on marketing ambition than on how this insolvency is resolved, and how investor safeguards are enforced.
Get access to selected articles
