Nine reasons to override a Clip Bankinter



Annulments declared continue to be confirmed first by the provincial hearings on Bankinter Clips.

In this case, Judgment relapse commented on one of these swaps, Provincial Court of Valencia (section 8) October six 2014.

The company Carllues S.L.. hires a lease on a commercial ship that funds the bank and it provides a Product to mitigate the effects of rising interest rates. So hired in July 2008 a Clip Bankinter Extra 0.8.3 maturing in January 2012. Is the nominal 1.000.000 euros. The first two assessments are positive and the other negative. The company is beginning to protest 2009 and the impossibility of reaching a friendly settlement, application before the Court the bank.

The Court of First Instance No. 14 Valencia estimated demand and declared invalid the "Contract Management Financial Risk" and product coverage called “Clip Bankinter Extra”, ordering restitution mutual benefit and condemning the bank to pay the costs.

The bank uses to the Provincial Court the following grounds:

1.- The plaintiff already had in January 2008 with property assets of more than 12 million and is part of a major food company to bill more than 30 million and has more than 400 staff. He also had experience in arranging swaps. Had the team to several experts and the administrator is a partner or agent in more than a dozen companies and professor at prestigious business schools.

2.- The information provided by Bankinter was sufficient and adequate and the contract is made numerous legal notices.

3.- There was no error in the consent was not possible because the complainant believed he was signing a safe, the lack of raw and in any case would be inexcusable error.

4.- The lack of appropriateness test does not necessarily imply the invalidity of the contract.

5.- The prepayment clause is not essential for the Clip.

The Lounge, dismissed the appeal and makes the following points:

1.- The swaps themselves are subject to the Securities Market Act, by expressly stated in his article 2.2. In addition there are complex products, that provide specific protection to the client that hires.

2.- It should be the customer know the type of product that hires, it is not safe interest rate and can lead to significant losses.

3.- It should provide the necessary information support as forcing the Securities Market Law Articles 78 and 79.

4.- The burden of proof on the fact that it lies sufficiently informed about the bank. And these effects, not enough to use statements and disclaimers in which it is stated that "the customer knows and accepts that financial instruments undersigned carry some degree of risk (….)”
In addition to these contracts is said that "it could reduce or even eliminate the economic benefit expected by the customer in this contract" without indicating anything that can lead to significant losses.

5.- The contract "You can not describe exactly clear, transparent and easy to understand " and also "suffers from serious omissions" as the method of calculation of the prepayment.

6.- The payment of the settlement does not imply the recognition of the contract.

7.- Carllues that S.L.. is a commercial entity and CFO have university degree does not automatically confer special financial literacy.

8.- No simulations and examples were neither gave sufficient time to reflect Product.

9.- No compulsory appropriateness test was.

Ultimately, the Court dismisses the bank, Clip confirms annulment Extra Bankinter and condemns the bank to pay the costs.

Consult your case now

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