The Supreme Court forces Abanca to compensate a client with 13,487.17 euros plus legal interest which suffered losses after acquiring preferred shares. In a key ruling, the court considers that the entity did not adequately report the risks associated with this complex financial product, which led to losses.
According to the ruling of November 25, 2024, in 2005 the affected party invested 33,600 euros in preferred shares issued by Caixanova. This product It was offered by the entity without fulfilling its obligation to report clearly and completely on the risks of the operation.
In 2013, after the intervention of the entity by the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB), a forced exchange of these shares for shares was carried out, and the affected party recovered 13,319.42 euros when selling them, but suffered a significant property loss.
Due to these losses and the failure of the entity to provide information, it sued Abanca, alleging that its consent was flawed due to lack of information and requesting the nullity of the contract or, alternatively, its resolution with compensation for damages.
The Supreme Court condemns Abanca for lack of transparency in the sale of preferred shares
Initially, the Court of First Instance No. 2 of Tui partially ruled in favor of the affected person. On the one hand, it rejected the nullity of the contract due to error in consent due to the expiration of the action, although declared its resolution for breach of the duty of information and ordered Abanca to return 20,280 euros plus interest, and the plaintiff to repay the income received (6,793.41 euros).
This decision was appealed and the Provincial Court of Pontevedra revoked the termination of the contract, although it maintained the sentence against Abanca as compensation for damages, considering that the failure to comply with the information duties justified said compensation.
Finally, Abanca appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging procedural errors and challenging the calculation of compensation, and was finally convicted. to compensate his client with 13,487.17 euros plus legal interest from the date of the lawsuit, for the property loss suffered.
The High Court bases its decision on article 79 bis of the Securities Market Law (LMV), which establishes the obligation of financial entities to report in a clear and understandable manner about the risks of their products. It also applied articles 1101 and 1106 of the Civil Code, which regulate the repair of damages and losses.
The ruling highlights that the entity “did not comply with the legal requirements established in national regulations and community and did not inform the contracting parties clearly, completely and in understandable terms about the characteristics of the contract”.
Furthermore, he stressed that the economic damage came from “the loss in value of the investment made, which is determined as follows: the value of the investment made less the value to which the financial product has been reduced and the returns that were collected by the plaintiffs, to the resulting amount of which will be added the legal interests from the filing of the lawsuit.”