Bonos Popular: New nullity in Tarragona

bonos banco popular

A new judgment annulling hiring Bonds Banco Popular, the long list adds.

In this case, been First Section of the Provincial Court of Tarragona, which has confirmed the invalidity of the subscription 240.000 euros in Subordinated Bonds of Banco Popular, and the subsequent exchange, in sentence 16 April 2016.

The Court of First Instance No. 7 El Vendrell, estimated demand in sentence 24 October 2014, mutual ordering the recovery of benefits: The customer would receive the entire invested with legal interest from the date of investment amount and return the remuneration received their legal interests.

The People's Bank, He appealed to the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona. El banco alega que el cliente conocía los bonos subordinados cuando los contrató y que si no leyó la información que el banco le proporcionó sería un comportamiento negligente.

For Hearing, Popular Convertible Bonds are complex products, hybrids, perpetual and high risk: Ello hace que no sean productos aptos para clientes minoristas.

The Securities Market Act, exige a las entidades financieras unas obligaciones de información a los clientes clara y no engañosa, especially about the risks associated with the product offered, and the entity must know the customer profile.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (in its judgment of 12 February 2016) states:

“It can not be understood complied with the delivery of the documents accompanying the contract on the characteristics of the financial product purchased, It is precise activity aimed at explaining clearly concretosvriesgos. Considers that when the bank offers a financial product, It is also in a position asesorvporque has a duty of advice: the important thing is to report on the characteristics of the product offered, not being quite complete or deliver a printed brochure or have been commissioned as pointing the STS Plenum 20 January 2014 and 7 and 8 July 2014 .”

And on the financial institution bears the burden of proof of having done a fair explanation, clear and detailed product and the risks.

It does not appear that the risks were explained to the customer product, so that he could understand the scope of its decision and adopt knowingly, therefore be declared invalid contract.

The appellant company was run to equity risk plaintiff did not want, and this breach of contract involves a lack of diligence required of every professional sector, that its obligations to the customer is to protect you against risks of their investment unwanted, including the loss of principal and interest, what constitutes grounds for nullity of contract and responsibility vitiated consent loss of value of the subordinated debt acquired ( STS 17 March 2013 and 20 March 2013 , inter).

The plaintiff was a pharmacist by profession and had made some investment operations in the same branch, but "They could be based on trust in the entity or its employees”, so it does not necessarily imply knowledge of the risks and financial training had.

Ultimately, se desestima el recurso y the judgment of the first instance declaring the nullity of the purchase contract Subordinated Bonds confirmed Popular.

Consult your case now

 

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter




Subscribe me

* This field is required