Bankia and Subordinated Preferred convicted in Valencia

preferentes bankia










The Court of First Instance No. 22 Valencia has declared void a purchase of preferred shares and subordinated debentures, Bankia condemning al payment 45.000 euros with yields back, legal interest and to pay the costs in Case 21 January 2014.

A marriage was a customer of the bank for more than 30 years old. On the initiative of an employee of the bank, they proposed a "deposit" that had no risk and the possibility of recovering their money when they want. In fact it was preference shares and subordinated debentures. They were buying preference shares and subordinated debentures between 2000 and 2007.

In 2012, under pressure by the bank, agreed to the proposal of an exchange.

In view of what happened, stand lawsuit alleging lack of information, violation of peremptory norms and fraud omissive.

The bank in its defense alleges lack of passive joinder necessary, default mode of submitting the application, expiration of the action, novation statute and the impossibility of bringing the action if the contract is canceled.

The bank says income products are not complex or risky fixed and denies that there have been bad banking practices, there is error ni dolo.

Expiration is discarded because its "Consummation" does not occur until the completion of all obligations (AP Valencia 05-03-2013 and 10-06-2013).

Marriage invertia their savings so conservative and banking training was very basic. Your rating was customer Retailers.

From the statements made in the hearing that the preference shares and subordinated debentures were not suitable for the customer profile and the information they were given was not adequate or sufficient.

The judge considered that the lack of information affects the provision of consent. The error is substantial wins, excusable for the confidence they had in the bank and therefore not attributable to the actors, tried under Article 217 the LEC (SSTS 28-09-96, 06-02-98, 26-07-2000).

The result is the nullity of the contract involved in the exchange for shares.

It orders the restitución benefits contracts with legal interest from the date of the investment and is ordered to pay the costs to the bank.

In this judgment the Court noted that refers to "mobile marketing preferred and subordinate" was the need to raise capital and literally says "And as they could not get it from professional investors and capital market, because they had no credit, managers chose to get these capitals retail customers, knowing that it was complex products, which enclosed risks and did not give appropriate orders as to the detailed information to those customers, the vast majority were people with little or bad financial training. The same employees of the bank, were not aware of the danger that enclosed these products and therefore not reported adequately and sufficiently ".

Consult your case by clicking 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