The District Court annuls Santander num.1 contract Caixa Bank preference shares and condemns the box to return to the client 97.000 euros, plus legal interest from the filing of the application.
From magistrado D. José Arsuaga declares "inefficient for revocation" of a contract signed in August of the year 2000 and subsequent purchases of preferred shares held through October 2005, and contracts in January 2012 to effect the exchange of the preferred. In this exchange, the plaintiff obtained only 29.500 euros of 97.000 I had invested.
According to the judge the characteristics of preference shares do "seriously doubt that the preference shares are a good instrument as investment product suitable for minority customers". Goes on to say that are worth "random and maximum risk, greater even than afforded by common shares "and must be integrated into the category of complex values. Considers that in this particular case, information provided by the financial institution "has not met" the objective conditions of correction (clear information, need, sufficient and timely) neither subjective, which are those that cater to specific circumstances of the customer (experience, studies, prior contracting other complex financial products etc.). To attend both circumstances, Judge considers that there was lack of consent, by mistake. The bank was required to provide information on what is hired and the risks they incurred.
Against the ruling, be appealed to the Provincial. The bank has been ordered to pay costs.
Source: Europa Press
We commented on this occasion the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Valencian Community 4 May 2012.
The assumption made is as follows: A worker, trying to force the company to dismiss and for this, starts performing tasks exaggeratedly slow, employing more than triple the normal time. Your attitude affects the company and other workers. The company, required to repeatedly and yet, continues to insist in his attitude. The company fired him and worker dismissal complaint. The labor court finds in favor of the company and the worker then appealed stands. Finally the Supreme Court finds in favor of the company.
The key points of the argument are as follows: It is stated as a fact that "During the last year of his tenure with the company (and especially in recent months) DLC that was intended to force the company to make the decision to dismiss, began to perform the tasks entrusted to him in a deliberately slow, invest in it more than three times what would be normal. His behavior affected the other workers as the work unfolded chain and they had to supplement their lack, transmitting many outrage and complaints, as did the direction of the company. "
The worker alleges in his appeal helplessness by vagueness of the charges, rejects argument that the letter of dismissal are expressed in detail the charges and dates, and comparative terms the result of his work with conducted by peers.
It is also alleged by the worker who has no prejudice to the company, what the Supreme Court responds that "Injury to the company is undeniable, not only from the standpoint of equity derived from the low yield, but also from the perspective of one's own work environment when one's peers of those who complain that reluctant attitude consciously made (…)”.
Finally, sentencing highlight two points: the importance of testing and concreteness in the letter of dismissal of the causes that motivate and support be harmed, the other workers.
==== If you liked the post, subscribe in the box on the left. Thanks
A judge has returned to give the customer reason for the preferred marketing.
In this case, the offender has been the CAM. The Court of First Instance and Instruction Segorbe (Castellon) cancel the sale of preferred shares to a pensioner and conviction to reimburse the primary CAM, of 23.000 euros plus statutory interest. The CAM also ordered to pay the costs.
The applicant relied on the existence of "mistake on consent". The judge, shows that the error in the consent was caused by "faulty" information that was provided to the client, "I did not know the true extent of the legal transaction concluded".
The reasoning of the judge we highlight two important points for the defense of similar cases of preferred:
1.- The error on the client: the bank failed in its legal obligation to inform the client, generating the same error serious enough to invalidate the contractual consent. If there is no consent, the contract is void, with each other to be refunded the services provided.
2.- The client had no speculative mood: is a consumer client, he simply wanted to get return on their savings. It is not a qualified investor or a company, that would be outside the scope of the General Law for the Defence of Consumers and Users.
If your situation is similar to that of the judgment, feel free to enforce their rights.
The Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed the nullity of the dismissal and reinstatement on the job of an employee of the Caja Rural de Toledo who reported having signed in February 2010 down voluntarily under duress Company.
The Social Chamber of TS has rejected the appeal filed by the bank against a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, which quashed the dismissal DP July. by violating fundamental rights.
The employee filed a complaint in July DP for a crime of threats and coercion against six directors of Caja Rural de Toledo that the 15 February 2010 -claimed the worker- pressured him to sign their opt-out of the company where he worked from 1991.
According to the complainant, that day during your work day was called into an office where the six directors will “conminaron” downward to subscribe “without further explanation” and warned him that if he did would be involved “in legal proceedings with criminal liability”, without giving “at any time” opportunity to defend.
Also argued that, “Dam severe anxiety” due to fear of losing their jobs, because it has four young children, signed one of the documents made available to it “under complete duress” of company representatives “and in a state of mind in which he did not own” for their actions.
For his part, the Human Resources department of the company said that the meeting was held to clarify the “serious irregularities” committed by the employee in credit operations non-compliant.
According to the company, at that meeting was informed in July D.P. of which was to conduct an interim suspension of employment within one week in order to have a deeper understanding of the scope of the facts.
He also said that in the meeting requested “freely and voluntarily” voluntary resignation of the company.
The 3 March Mediation Service, Arbitration and Conciliation (SMAC) Toledo held a conciliation with the result “without agreement”.
Finally, after going to the ordinary courts, the 24 March 2011, the High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha rejected the appeal of the Caja Rural de Toledo to the judgment of the Labour Court number 2 Toledo and quashed the dismissal by “fundamental rights-infringing”.
TS Magistrates now corroborate the judgment, of Aurelio Toothless by rapporteur, condemn this decision and to the Rural “immediate reinstatement” the employee to his job in the same conditions and with the payment of all unpaid wages from the 15 February 2010.
The loSocial Court No. 4 Alicante, been estimated from the dismissal of the Director General of the CAM.
The judgment, include the following paragraphs:
. The fact that no contracts have been entered into senior management has not ignored the establishment of improvements to the members of the Steering Committee and Territorial Directors by resolutions of the Board of Directors upon the recommendation of the Remuneration Committee (…).
Therefore, must be concluded that the employment of the plaintiff while he served as Deputy Director General, this is from the 16.02.01 and until his dismissal employment should qualify as special senior management, in accordance with Article 2.1 a) Part E. T. "
“initially will supply 3.000 million, plus an additional contribution 2.800 million, which have come largely from the public purse, thus their behavior is of, si cabe, greater severity.
, Circular singularly 4/2004 Bank of Spain,
i as the CAM,”
“ as discussed above, In fact, of the evidence taken in the act of sight, singularly the witness of Sr. Vidal instance that deposed the plaintiff, “
“F A L L O:
That filed by Ms. MARTA front SAVINGS BANK AND MEDITERRANEAN CAM, S. A. I testify and declare from the dismissal of the plaintiff, validated declaring the termination of the contract of work that produced, without compensation or wages for processing. "