Declared invalid some bonds placed by Bankinter in Cádiz

bonos bankinter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Court of First Instance No. 1 of Cádiz has declared the nullity of subscription contracts 7 bonds placed by Bankinter in a particular sentence 29 April 2014.

Plaintiff advised him in his office Bankinter for money were invested in the following products: American Banking Bono, Bono Clip Gr Indices, Bono Clip Sectores 2, Bonus Clip Energies, Bono Structured Telefónica 14, Welcome and Bono Bono Structured Structured Santef.

As a result of these investments, the plaintiff incurred a gross losses over 189.000 euros. Requests the bank for lack of cause or object of contracts, nullity vice consent misinformation pre, contractual and post-contractual, void for breach of peremptory norms, breach of the duties of the bank with compensation for damages, dark and void clauses and / or ambiguous.

The bank claims that his client had investment experience in subordinated debentures Bankinter, Investments in equities and mutual funds. He says his work has been only intermediation, without having been advice so it was not necessary to conduct a suitability test.

The judge stated in the judgment that the obligation to report by banks can lead to nulidades of concurrent. On the one hand, provided for in Article 1303 Civil Code, consisting of error in the consent, and otherwise, which involves breach of a peremptory norm as it is governed by Article 79 to, sections 6 and 7 inadequately to perform the test of suitability.

The burden of proof (STS 14 November 2005) about the information provided on the contract, rests with the financial professional that customer, it would be proof of a negative fact, impossible to perform.

This refers to the circular of the CNMV 7 May 2009 on irregularities in the sale of financial instruments, and indicates that it has not been established have provided some information in advance to the recruitment of these complex products.

Also, Bankinter has these products as debt instruments, actually being complex hybrid products.

The court considers that the test performed does not meet the requirements of clear information, specific, personalized. Also, considering the lack of actor hired products, the entity must supply additional information. This behavior qualifies as serious breach of duty of impartiality, good faith, diligence, prudence and ultimately, the bank's commitment to look after the interests of their customers as if they were their own.

The lack of correct information, accurate and appropriate by the bank, caused a error excusable by customer, sufficient to invalidate the consent.

Declared the nullity, mutual ordering the recovery of benefits, with pay interest from the date of the signing of the contract and all expenses generated by the signing of contracts, with ordered to pay the bank.

Consult your case by clicking here.

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