Bankia ordered to return 116.000 euros in preference

preferred attorney

The Court of First Instance No. 49 Madrid has condemned the Bankia to return 116.000 euro placed en preference shares, in sentence 11 September 2013.

The applicants seek the annulment procurement contract preference shares by the information they provided was incomplete. They were looking for a safe investment and bank them inadequately advised. The complex nature of the product is also alleged.

The bank claims that the applicants had also similar products as preferred Endesa and the entity fulfilled its obligations, having performed the test of convenience and delivery of the prospectus of the issue. He says that the losses of the plaintiffs did not involve civil or legal incapacity and that no advice.

The fact that physical and psychological of the children of the contracting conditions are poor, not imply that they did not have the capacity to act, but it demonstrates the need to make products safe.

The Magistrate Judge notes that half of their savings were invested in this product by the confidence in the institution.

Concludes that there was little or Incorrect product information, known customer profile.

Moreover, advice indicates that there, citing STS 18 September 2006: "Contracts are what they are and qualification does not depend on the names you have given Contracting". Also mentions STS 6 April 2006 which states that "the wording of the contracts are not imposed when absolutely terms of the relationship are not presented with sufficient precision and clarity, and are dissatisfied with the will of the parties, as the crucial factor to which was the true contractual intent, not depending on the nature of the legal business of the denomination that the parties have attributed them (…)”.

The result of the test carried out was follows that manager of the bank that offers products and advice to actors.

The bank employee not informed of the perpetuity. The payer was an elderly person with two children with severe physical and mental difficulties, which made their preferences were for investment and insurance products and volatile non-perpetual preferred shares as.

After analyzing the error doctrine, Magistrate Judge concludes that the applicant committed this, motivated and induced by the financial institution, that caused a false representation about the suitability of the object to the aim pursued contractual, the foundations of the business and the premises of the contract. You will not be informed properly about the characteristics of the product purchased, without you mention the perpetuity and the peculiarities of its transmission.

Declared the invalidity of the preferred procurement Bankia and orders to pay the applicants 116.000 euros, plus legal interest from the filing of the complaint, without express imposition of costs.

Consult your case by clicking here.

Vote for the Blog Awards Burguera Lawyers for Blogs 2013, click here.


Leave a Reply


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