Confirmed the invalidity of a Swap in Oviedo

swap

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Provincial Court of Oviedo, confirmed the invalidity of a swap contract for a limited partnership with BBVA Case 24 April 2014.

The company, a limited partnership dedicated to paintings, signed in August 2008 a swap agreement the swap, called "I Stockpyme doped" with BBVA.

Given the injuries suffered by the negative settlements and lack of mutual agreement, require the bank and the district court considers the claims of the company, annulling the contrato Swap and ordering the mutual recovery of benefits, together with costs to the bank.

The bank uses before the Provincial Court.

The Court said that this is a complex product, Random and risk. "The commercialization of this banking product, its complexity and randomness, and by the difficulty of operating mechanical forcing the bank to observe a special duty of disclosure ".

After reviewing the applicable regulations (Securities Market Law, Law 47/2007 y R.D.217 / 2008), the Court now considers the pleas bank. East, question the complainant's error, that the time of signing, had arranged similar to another bank and subsequently, held other similar.

The Court dismissed the appeal, because while effectively, the plaintiff had made with another bank similar contracts in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, the company representative at the time of such transactions suffered the same ignorance and ignorance that was signed when the trial. Given the chronological proximity, is it credible that statement. Also, when he began to suffer the harm of such contracts, reached an amicable agreement with Banco de Sabadell to cancel, which was not possible with the BBVA.

Also, adds Hearing, in any case, the bank was not relieved of its obligation to inform the customer clearly and sufficiently, on its swap agreement or swap.

No graphic examples were explained about the different evolution scenarios of the type. And the structure of the swap was clearly unbalanced to the bank. He presented the company with an exclusively swap positive outlook as "coverage", "Protection" and "safeguard" against the increase in interest rates, omitting the downside in case of fall of Euribor. And this partial information caused the existence of error vitiates consent.

Ultimately, The appeal is dismissed, confirming the invalidity of swap and sentenced to the bank to pay 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