Judgment on Preferred, Shares and Subordinated: Bankia punished again

Preferred, subordinate, bankia,









The Court of First Instance No. 5 of Cáceres declared void contracts subscription of preference shares and subordinated debentures signed in 2009 and 2010, ordering the payment of principal, with application of the legal interest from the date of purchase, in sentence 18 November 2013.

A marriage of Caceres had invested 86.000 EUR preference shares Caja Madrid 2009, 40.000 EUR Subordinated Notes and 15.000 EUR actions of Bankia. They sold some of the preference shares and ran out 51.000 nominal euros. His training was scarce, no educational qualifications. Her husband was retired and had been a bricklayer profession. The money invested came from compensation received by his wife. They worked many years with the company, taking special trust with your manager. Before entering into these products, had only three tanks had zero or very low level risk. The preference shares recommendation were subscribed by employees of Caja Madrid. The applicant signed the convenience test, but was not warned of the risks of the operation. Always thought she was hiring a fixed term. You will not be informed that this was a complex and perpetual product and was not guaranteed by the Deposit Guarantee Fund. Neither of the illiquidity of the same.

The Magistrate Judge in Preliminary Hearing, dismissed the procedural defects alegados for Bankia: The usual "Lack of necessary joint litigation" is dropped in the subordinated debt and in the actions Bankia that are issued directly by the institution. The preference shares, although they were issued by Caja Madrid Finance Preferred SA. is a company owned 100% Caja Madrid, which is the guarantor of compliance with the obligations of the issuing, according to the information document filed with the CNMV. Caja Madrid was who sold the product with his vices, without in any moment intervene the issuer.

As for the substantive reasons, the applicants seek the absolute nullity or cancellation of subscription contracts of the three products, by error or fraud in the provision of contractual consent compliance with specific regulations.

The bank in turn argues that met all its reporting obligations.

The Magistrate analyzes the nature of the preference shares and subordinated debentures, indicating that this is a complex product so the investment profile should be a specialist investor and financial literacy.

He points out the difference with actions, they are considered as a value not complex: Article 79 to 8 A) of the SML procedure excludes information to shares admitted to trading on a regulated market: Its liquidity is very high, its price is readily available to the public and risks are "general knowledge".

Customers had the classification of Retailers, under Articles 38 and 39 of RD 1310/2005.

Information duties are analyzed bank items 79 and 79 bis of the Securities Market Act.

The information booklet has terms of difficult understanding and appropriateness test is not credible.

In contracts sufficient information is not indicated on the same object.

The Magistrate rejected the "disclaimers" that involve signed clearly informed of the product features that acquired.

In conclusion, lack of adequate information was a fundamental defect of consent leading to the annulment of subscription contracts preference shares and subordinated debentures.

Nullity of the execution of the actions is dismissed because it is a product "not complex".

Ultimately, mutual ordering recovery of benefits, with legal interest from the date of subscription, but only of contracts to subscribe for preference shares and subordinated debentures.

Demand estimated to have partially, no order for costs.


Join the Class 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