Bankia convicted of preference in Leganés

preferred attorney

According to the defense of the bank, "It was a safe product, strong and has generated a significant return ".

The Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 5 Leganes has condemned Bankia to return 100.000 euros invested in Preferred, plus legal interest from the date of contract with reciprocal recovery of benefits, and to pay the costs in Case 21 March 2013.

The applicant bases its request on the lack of consent validly given not having been duly informed by the defendant of the procurement.

The bank argued lack of passive joinder necessary (question rejected by the judge at the Preliminary Hearing) and denies that it had error the client is adequately informed of the product. According to the bank "It has been a safe product, strong and has generated a significant return " (I refrain from commenting on this statement prudent bank).

Magistrate-Judge examines the nature of preference shares and applicable law, specifically, the Securities Market Act, which highlights the following precepts:

  • Art. 78 bis requires financial institutions to obtain information needed to classify s clients in professional or retail.

  • Art. 79 bis imposes the obligation to keep the client in an "impartial, clear and not misleading ", and shall understandable information so as to enable clients to understand the nature and risks of the investment offered. Furthermore at paragraph 7 the test for establishing whether the product is suitable for the customer.

The RD 217/2008 develops regulations and consumer protection in his article 60 states that information must be accurate, impartial and visible, and comprehensible and not hide or minimize any important aspect. Su art. 73 regulates convenience test.

Judgment of the Court of Madrid section highlights 14 of 10 February 2013 that endorses the objectives of financial regulation among them:

a) Provide high quality information to enable an informed decision to customers.

b) That consumers have time and opportunity to reflect.

To Judge-Judge, what matters is that the work is custom advisory, taking into account the personal and economic circumstances of clients, and citing SAP says Barcelona 4 December 2009: "You can only be responsible to the client the unfortunate result of the investment if the manager has played in the commission of their duties diligently ..."

He also cites the SAP section of Valencia 9 of 30.10.2008 indicating: (…) “because only a well-informed consumer can choose the product that best suits their needs and make a proper recruitment " (….) "The information must be clear, need, enough and emphasizing that every operation carries risks, especially in high-risk financial products, so that the client knows precisely the effects of the operation that hires ".

The client is considered retail and conservative. Not known to the customer about the product and its risks are adequately inform.

In conclusion, the nullity of the contract is declared and ordered restitution of mutual benefits, with legal interest from the date of subscription and allocation of costs to the bank.

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