Can I claim if I sold my "toxic assets"?













Very often we raise the question of whether you can claim once the preferred shares were sold, the "Securities Santander", structured bonds, autocancelables and other products of the "bestiary" of bad banking practice.

For those who want to get down to business: in principle yes you can claim. The bank said it will oppose the sale contract has been validated, but the last word is the Judge.

A contract having an irregularity, may be validated, confirmed the converted. Let's see what each concept.


The validation is a healing of the contract, that vitiated by an irregularity in the time of its conclusion. The civil code refers to this validation as "confirmation".


Confirmation purified to contract the vices of consent that vitiated from the time of its conclusion (art. 1.313 C.C).

The requirements for confirmation are:

1: That is the confirming which could claim la anulabilidad.

2: Confirming that the know the cause of invalidity.

3: That the cause for revocation has disappeared when confirmation is made.

4: That the contract is anulable. If the contract is radically null (for lack of any of its essential elements or go against peremptory norms), can not confirm.

Namely, which sold its preferential or "Valores Santander" or any other toxic assets that needed the money and did not know the causes of nullity, is not confirming the contract when selling.

The "catalog" of toxic assets, swaps or "swaps" are included in all varieties: There are customers that canceled seeing that were costing them a fortune: can claim for them, unaware that the causes of nullity thereof.

It is often argued by financial institutions has been a tacit confirmation Item 1.311 the C.Civil: “It is understood that there is tacit confirmation when, with knowledge of the cause of invalidity and having it ceased, one who has the right to invoke execute an act which necessarily implies the willingness to renounce ".

Acts done without encouragement convalidante are in tacit confirmation. And the loss of the thing, to mean the extinction of the cause of invalidity, requires guilt deceit on the part of the lost (art. 1314 the C.C.). And according to the concepts of intent in Article 1.269 and guilt in Article 1.104, selling one of these toxic products that the money was needed, does not fit into either.

Ultimately, in normal cases, having sold their "toxic assets" does not prevent you to claim their rights.

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