The Court of First Instance 1 Gava has given judgment declaring null signed several contracts preferred shares for an elderly couple and their daughter as vice consent.

In the Judgment, the demand is estimated , the invalidity of contracts and annexes is declared to return mutual benefit between the parties and the defendant is sentenced to reintegrate players € 309.329.87 , plus statutory interest from the date of filing the claim.

The Court considers that there is a clear fraudulent action of Bankia in marketing a product and objectively risky speculative some people conservative financial profile without knowledge, why only the product computed as capital of the Bank. This interesting judgment, include , in summary, the following arguments:

The preference share is a kind of negotiable instrument which has been profusely issued by credit institutions in recent years as part of its strategy for the improvement of their balance sheets to the severe financial crisis that affects them.

Customers thought they were hiring deposits , a , redeemable at any time without penalty fixed term of 5 years, when they were actually signing a preferential which made them partakers of the risks and liabilities of the bank.

Also was established that although marriage signed the appropriateness test ( daughter no) signed him as a mere form and not answer any questions because the test came refilling printer and recognized manager , saying had instructions to ” put ” the shares to customers ” was a priority as other campaigns and products.” I did not know that studies have actors , not thinking that whatever happened , it was a perpetual deposit no maturity , no informed them that the warranty was the bank and they could lose ,sold as a safe product even recommended it to their families; recorded that he gave information, but could not remember which was not known that there would be no secondary market, the test is marked by the experience and knowledge of customers and they signed did not remember which of the four test questions only one refers to preferential , marked the boxes out of the computer. The features were that it was a perpetual deposit without maturity. I did not know it was capital of the company . Could not remember if he told the players that if Bankia had no benefits , they also lose . Do not know if the actors read the leaflet .

The judgment concludes that :

In this case we conclude that the consent of the applicants for the purchase of preference shares was paid by mistake, first because their personal circumstances away their investor profile that takes this type of complex products , these retirees and their daughter is only supportive, they could not have immediately from your savings , given that they were deposited in a fixed -term preference shares were offered this possibility , it is therefore a regular saver, as depositor money situation legal minimum financial risk and no, a venture at the highest level , even in May position the own risk of the shareholders or , where applicable, share – holders, the issuing credit institution , it is not difficult to establish the nature and no retail investor profile , the actor at the time of the initial subscription of contracts subject to prosecution and, therefore , the inadequacy of attention to them in their profile.
All this lack of information leads to the result that the actors lend their consent to the acquisition of the product, concurring crippling mistake.