Bankia Shares: new estimate by the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

bankia actions

 

The Provincial Court of Oviedo has confirmed a sentence of Bankia by the Court of First Instance, by marketing shares in the tender offer, in sentence 23 March 2015.

It is the third sentence in a provincial court ruling on the Bankia shares placed in the Public Offer and three were in favor of investors.

Also, This statement has interest in this case, the purchase was not made directly through the offices of Bankia, but the shares were purchased through a branch of Banco Sabadell. Also, Bankia shares were sold.

Customers, won them a fixed term, and encouraged by the advertising campaign, placed 19.928 EUR Bankia shares in the Public Offer. After contrasplit and reducing the nominal, on April 2014 sell their shares for 70,23 euros. In view of the disaster, require the bank. But this time the action brought is directly compensation for damages caused by the difference between the purchase price and the selling price. And that damage, is based, not in the stock market fluctuations, but in the inveracidad information issued by Bankia to go public.

The Court of First Instance No. 2 Oviedo estimated demand Bankia and sentenced to pay 19.928 euros, legal interests and to pay the costs.

Bankia recourse to the Provincial Court on the following grounds:

1.- Lack of necessary joint litigation: It should have sued the Sabadell is who sold the shares of Bankia.
2.- Confirmation of consent doctrine of estoppel, that to have sold the shares of Bankia, it would be "healed" error.
3.-You can not consider the falsity of the information about the actions of Bankia in the summary as a "known fact". The expert technical report from the Bank of Spain makes it certain facts unproven.
4.- Monitoring the CNMV and the Bank of Spain would be "blessed" operation.
5.- Error in the quantification of damages, it should take into account other factors such as the evolution of the bag.
6.- Criminal prejudicialidad.

To the Provincial Court:

1.- The determining factor is the goodness of the data provided by Bankia to go public, which is then revealed that they were "ab initio" devalued: Have nothing to do stock market fluctuations, or the housing crisis (whose burst is prior to placement).

2.- The CNMV performs a purely formal control. And the Bank of Spain and in 2.010 he detected a progressive negative situation. The auditor Deloitte had been sanctioned by the ICAC.

3.- "It is clear the enormous and substantial disparity in benefits and actual losses within the year (A mere difference semester), developer, given the audited accounts and approved, that society was in a state of severe losses " to the point of being a notorious fact that the defendant ended up requesting public intervention. (Art. 281.4 of the Civil Procedure Act). The financial situation described in the brochure was not real but incorrect e inveraz.

4.- Must be the financial institution attesting that the time of the IPO, the data were accurate and truthful.

5.- Passive joinder need is discarded with Banco Sabadell, for being mere intermediaries.

6.- The sale of securities is not an endorsement or involves an application of the "theory of estoppel".

7.- Having sold the shares does not involve "compensation of guilt" or preclude compensation.

8.- The question of criminal prejudicialidad discarded, on which he has already made the Provincial Court of Valencia in car 1 December 2014.

Ultimately, the sentence is confirmed and condemned the bank to pay compensation for the loss of value of the Bankia shares placed in the OPS and the costs.

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