The ruling relates to the proposal for this Sunday's mediation business carried on by a bank in Giacomelli sale of bonds (discussed in the episode last Wednesday to Trentino Inblu radio ).
The court considered the conduct of the Sienese bank seriously detrimental to the interests of the consumer / investor, as the employees of the credit non hanno avvertito il cliente dei rischi collegati all'acquisto di obbligazioni Giacomelli e non avrebbero valutato l'adeguatezza dell'investimento al profilo di rischio, peraltro nemmeno deteminato così come previsto ex art. 28 comma 1 Reg. Consob 11522/1998, dell'investitore.
L'obbligo di informazione, violato dalla banca, è espressione dei generali doveri di diligenza, correttezza e trasparenza che sempre devono accompagnare la condotta dell'operatore professionale nei rapporti con l'investitore retail .
REPUBBLICA ITALIANA
IN NOME DEL POPOLO ITALIANO
IL CIVIL COURT OF SIENA , meeting in the Council Chamber composed of Judges and
[ omitted]
actual process
xxx sued in this Court to Article. Legisl.vo 2 of Decree 5 / 2003 (corporate procedure) the Bank Act authorized representative dicitaizone duly served and exposed that it maintained a current account with the institution agreed at Turin branch on which she was charged on 17/06 .2002 the total amount of € 16,069.60 for the purchase of bonds GIACOMELLI F07 8.375, which she non ricordava di avere impartito il relativo ordine, né di avere sottoscritto un contratto quadro per la intermediazione in valori mobiliari, né di aver ricevuto il documento sui rischi generali di investimento, né di aver rilasciato alla banca informazioni sulla sua esperienza in materia di strumenti finanziari, né esposto alla banca i propri obiettivi di investimento e il livello della propria propensione al rischio, che in ogni caso, a prescindere dagli obblighi informativi di carattere generale necessari per un corretto inquadramento del cliente, l'istituto di credito convenuto non aveva assicurato alla cliente alcuna specifica informazione sulla natura, caratteristiche, grado di rischio dell'investimento in obbligazioni GIACOMELLI, prive di rating ufficiale e di prospetto informativo, destinate a investitori istituzionali e che pertanto nessuna reale informazione era stata assicurata in punto ad adeguatezza dell'investimento, soprattutto in relazione allo stato di indebitamento del gruppo GIACOMELLI, nonchè allo stato di tensione finanziaria che era subentrato nel corso del 2003; che inoltre l'operazione era stata assunta dalla banca in conto partita diretta, su un mercato non regolamentato, era in conflitto di interessi, che il grado di conoscenza degli strumenti finanziari da parte della xxx era molto limitato, che in data 9.10.2003 era stato dichiarato dal Tribunale di Rimini lo stato di insolvenza della GIACOMELLI SPORT GROUP s.p.a. garante del prestito obbligazionario con conseguente azzeramento the value of the bond purchased, that nothing had been refunded or compensated, which marked the conduct of the defendant by the credit against the investor descended the invalidity of the agency contract and at the nullity of the individual orders executed on behalf of client Ivoli to mandatory rules of law and regulation, in the alternative was the annulment of the investment in the presence of an inductive behavior of the intermediary or the termination of the contract for material breach of the intermediary for breach of duty of care and fairness and however, for breach of the rules governing the obligations of transparency, information and market knowledge and collaboration with the customer in the specific field of financial intermediation.
It was an action against Bank xxx with appearance and response duly served and filed at the Court and challenged the entire demand of the plaintiff; assumed that if the case was reached between the parties under a regular contract for the mediation of values securities on 23.3.2001 with the delivery of the document on the general risks, which then had the xxxx issued an authorization to operate in the securities to her husband, xxxx, recognizing the validity and effectiveness of the orders from the same imparitti, that he had done forming a comprehensive package of speculative values \u200b\u200bincluding bonds issued by emerging countries, showing clear purpose in buying high-yield and therefore meant risk-taking, in relation to securities GIACOMELLI the subject of proceedings was the same Mr. xxxx to solicit the purchase and the same operaione appalesava is appropriate to the risk profile so far taken by the investor, after the default group Giacomelli, intervened in October 2003, the customer, who had forfeited the coupons on bonds so far gained, had ceased its relationship with the institute agreed by relocating positions which was followed by a special administration GIACOMELLI Group in relation to which it was possible to expect a rebate, estimated the extent of 25% of obbligaizoni de quo in the purchase order, the subject of dispute, the investor had acknowledged that he had received adequate information in the context of the investment in question.
oeprato also submit that it was in full compliance with all relevant Consob for the protection of the consumer, who was made aware of the risks of each investment, which had evaluated the risk appetite, had assessed the suitability of each single investment transaction, directing the customer in its investment choices also giving him the "general document on the risks."
assumed that there was no obligation to provide customers with consocenze sulle offering circulars, né sussisteva conflitto di interessi poiché l'istituto convenuto non detenva i titoli nel proprio portafoglio e che comunque doveva ritenersi legittima la negoziazione dei suddetti titoli su mercati secondari in favore di investitori non professionali nella fase in cui detti tioli non fossero ancora stati emessi; rilevava che non sussistevano i presupposti per pronunciarsi la nullità degli ordini di acquisto dei titoli, in assenza di una violazione relativa alla forma scritta dell'ordine non essendo prevista la sanzione della nullità per la violazione delle norme regolamentari in difetto di imperatività delle stesse; contestava la sussistenza di ipotesi di annullabilità degli ordini e di inadempimento imputabile likely to result in termination of the contract, however, in case he loses, he requested that the securities were investment returns.
The parties exchanged their defenses, then, by application filed October 27, 2009, the actress formulated the 'request for a hearing to discuss the result of chance pursuant to art. 16 of the DRC. legis. 5 / 2003.
Desiganto the investigating judge, they fixed the hearing of collegial discussion of the case and the Bank agreed, in turn, stated their own conclusions.
At the hearing on March 17, 2010 before the Board, composed as an epigraph, as a result of exchange of defense cnclusionali and oral hearings, failed attempt conciliation of the parties, the Court took the case decision, the statutory deadline for the filing of the judgment
Grounds for the decision should first be said that the actress had xxxx xxxxx to conclude a contract with the Bank for brokerage securities in custody and an opening on 23.3.2001, in the same circumstances that did not have to highlight particular risk tolerance, financial experience, investment objectives and so on. but only provvedette to sign some documents and clauses contract and give notice of being made aware of the document on the general risks of investments. On June 12, 2002 xxx xxxx husband, and owner di una procura ad operare in titoli sul predetto deposito titoli e in attuazione del contratto di intermediazione di cui sopra, e che già in precdenza aveva imparitto diverse disposizioni in obbligazioni di paesi emergenti e in obbligazioni corporate, impartiva tramite l'intermediario convenuto, l'ordine di acquisto di 16.000 obbligazioni GIACOMELLI F07 8,375 al prezzo di 98,28; l'attrice ebbe a precepire le cedole sul predetto investimento fino a quando, nell'ottobre 2003, veniva dichiarato il default del gruppo GIACOMELLI garante dell'intera operazione finanziaria sottostante la emissione obbligazionaria de quo.
Osserva il Tribunale che, ai sensi dell'art. 23 del decr. leg.vo n. 58/1998, <>. Per giurisprudenza ormai prevalent, this Court agrees, the rule in art. 23, first paragraph of the Presidential Decree. legislative decree 58/1998, refers to the so-called framework agreement (\u0026lt;>), while individual purchase orders or financial instruments or performance of service, which gives rise to the Bank in fulfillment of commitments under the framework contract, may be made in writing or other form prescribed by Regulation. The individual adjustment of the purchase of securities are governed by Articles. 30 and 60 of Consob Regulation 11522 of 1 July 1998. According to these rules: \u0026lt;> a copy of which must be delivered to the investor, and should be indicated \u0026lt; > (art. 30). When the broker receives orders at its registered office, the investor must issue a statement containing the paper transaction. However, if the order is given by telephone brokers must register it on tape or equivalent support (Article 60). In this case, the purchase of bonds by the actress GIACOMELLI occurred consistently in the framework contract, and a specific written order and subsequent purchase of the framework contract is implemented and expression.
Even the existence of the reported violations of the actress xxx with respect to transactions entered into dalla Banca in conflitto di interessi (art. 27, comma 2°, Regol. Consob), e alla mancata consegna all'investitore del prospetto informativo approvato dalla Consob e relativo a ciascun titolo e cioé il c.d. < >. Deve invero convenirsi con la difesa della Banca che nessun conflitto di interessi sussiste in ordine alla vendita delle obbligazioni in oggetto. Ed infatti non solo non è stata fornita alcuna prova che la Banca, al momento dell'operazione, già fosse in possesso delle obbligazioni vendute al cliente, ma dalla stessa docuemntazione fornita dalla convenuta, risulta che la Banca convenuta non si è posta sul mercato quale collocatrice di questi titoli. Quanto alla consegna da parte dell'intermediario finanziario the customer's statement conforms to the model Consob, on the occasion of each purchase, it suffices to note that an investor's obligation to deliver such Prospectus (Offering Circular) is not even covered by the rules applicable at the time of operations and even later. The explanatory note of the financial instruments and related information that was consegato investor shall be solely in art. 28, paragraph 1, Rec. Consob, called \u0026lt;>, which is normally allow at the time of the framework agreement, a document that the actress was given the contract under the 01.12.1998 as the same actress is not denied. The financial information specific to individual financial instruments available in the securities market (so-called \u0026lt;>), are usually reserved for distributors and institutions are therefore not available from the fund's investment intermediaries, such as the Bank xxxxx, not necessarily due to retail investors that financial operators are turning on their own except in the case of "solicitation" to the audience.
The Bank of Italy in the Economic Bulletin No 41/03 (doc. 8 of the defendant) and in CONSOB hearing 27.4.2004 in the Chamber of Deputies Finance Committee (see the judgments of the Court of Genoa 3 November 2006 No 3771 and No 1887/2006 and Court of Milan 07/25/2005) showed that the securities issued and purchased nsull'Euromercato, according to general practice, underwritten by institutional investors, are then traded on the secondary market without the requirement of delivery of the prospectus, unless the subsequent sale assume the characteristics of the solicitation to the public above. Indeed, it was argued by the CONSOB and the Bank of Italy that the subsequent sale to retail investors cd entails the obligation of delivery of the prospectus, when compared to a solicitation, there was a promotional activity qualifies as an offer, invitation to offer or promotional message, that such offer is addressed to a general public of subjects, they satisfy the adoption of standardized forms for conducting such activities. The absence of any evidence of recurrence of such elements in this case must be considered that the defendant had no obligation to release any statement on the securities in question and that it was entitled to negotiate on the tiotlo also called gray market , when on the one hand, professional investors buy securities from placement banks anticipating the moment of subscription of securities and their listing on the official market, shall negotiate with the other customers who request them through a mechanism similar alla vendita di cosa futura. Con i suddetti prospetti informativi non devono essere confuse < >, informazioni che ai sensi dell'art. 28, comma 2°, Regolam. Consob n. 11.522 del 1998, sono obbligati a fornire agli investitori tutti gli intermediari autorizzati.
Venendo poi all'esame degli asseriti comportamenti non regolamentari tenuti dall'istituto di credito e alle conseguenze lesive che ne sono derivate, la parte attrice ha sostenuto che la Banca ha violato gli artt. 21 del decr. leg.vo n. 58/1998 e 27, 28 e 29 del Regolamento Consob 11.522/1998 perch ha omesso di informare esso investitore sulla natrua dell'operazione e sui rischi e le implicazioni che l'acquisto in questione comportava, di valutare l'adeguatezza dell'operazione al profilo di rischio che l'investitore presentava, e per aver violato il divieto di dare corso all'operazione che si presentava come inadeguata al cliente, traendone conseguenze di nullità ovvero di inadempimento contrattuale.
Va a tale proposito evidenziato come alla stregua dei principi regolamentari sopra indicati la intermediazione di prodotti finanziari deve avvenire secondo regole di diligenza, correttezza e trasparenza nell'interesse dei clienti e il rispetto di tali regole, desumibili peraltro dai principi generali in materia di adempimento di obbligazioni da assolversi sulla base della natrua dell'attività esercitata e secondo i modelli del soggetto eiusdem professionis et condicionis, di cui agli art. 1175, 1176 II comma, 1374, 1375 c.c., trova riscontro nl comma VI dell'art. 23 TUF in base al quale " nei giudizi di risarcimento dei danni cagionati al cliente nei servizi di investimento e di quelli accessori, spetta ai soggetti abilitati l'onere della prova dia vere agito con la diligenza richiesta ".
Nel caso in oggetto, la banca convenuta si è del tutto sottratta a tale onere. In particolare allorché risulti necessario accertare la responsabilità contrattuale per i danni subiti dall'investitore " va accertato se l'intermediario abbia diligentemente adempiuto alle obbligazioni scaturenti dal contratto di intermediazione nonché, in ogni caso, a tutte quelle obbligatoriamente poste a suo carico dal decr. Les.vo 14.2.1998 n. 58 nonché dalla normativa secondaria, risultando così discipilnato il riparto dell'onere della prova: l'investitore deve allegare l'inadempimento delle citate obbligazione da parte dell'intermediario nonché fornire prova del danno e del nesso di causalità tra questo e l'inadempimento, anche sulla base di presunzioni; l'intermediario a sua volta deve provare l'adempimento delle specifiche obbligazioni poste a suo carico allegate come inadempiute dalla controparte e, sotto il profilo soggettivo, di avre agito con la specifica diligenza richiesta " (Cass. Sez. I, 17.2.2009 n. 3773).
Already the rise of very considerable value of intermediation emerging profiles of negligence on the part of the intermediary who, assumed this role, he did not hesitate in any way to acquire information about customers to learn their level of experience and knowledge of the financial market, its investment objectives, the size of the sums to invest, the risk appetite of the same, nor an expert to determine whether the customer was or was not willing to provide such information or to recognize those intentions or such objectives. This survey was much more apt in this case because the xxx, owner and contractor of the deposit at a ratio of brokerage, at the bottom of which is also the signature of her husband xxxx, had to delegate it to work on investment securities, agreeing in advance and without reservation the results of such an office, doing away with any doubt. However, given the intense operation of xxx on the securities account was not only necessary, but necessary, and also to protect the interests of the represented, today's actress xxx, which the bank agreed to acquire information to determine the actual profile investor, which was exactly the xxxx who, it was immediately put to work in the field of corporate bonds and emerging markets. In conclusion, the intermediary, contravention of specific regulatory measures, it was totally disinterested to know your customer, omitting any form of interevista or prior acquisition of relevant information, clearly preliminary and instrumental activities in order then to guide the customer in the choice of financial instruments, period (years 2001 to 2002) to run more profitable investment in the face of stock prices and bond yields with annual double-digit percentage, or to dissuade him from overly speculative investment as inappropriate to the objectives pursued, or unsuitable the profile of investors and its risk appetite, or even to proceed operation only on customer request in response to the reported inadequacy of the investment. Ultimately as an investment in financial instruments and xxxx xxxx perfeteti were two unknown to the intermediary, or such could be considered cnoscenza gained by the fact that he used to make purchases xxxx selected securities obblgazionari high profitability (and therefore high risk) where the highlights investor appetite for risk in practice but not accompanied by a preliminary assessment of it will not in itself constitute proof of the unique investment objectives pursued by the customer or the expression of knowledge by of these in the market, nor regarded as a symptom of a particular experience and management capacity that xxx would invest mainly in foreign countries on Compulsory emerging (Turkey, Russia and Brazil), the premise of all other forms of investment even longer term, if circumstances are within the common knowledge the usefulness and importance of diversifying investments and diluting the same in different financial sectors in the short and long period of time, equities and bonds, so as to rationalize the resources available to the ' non-institutional investor.
If it is true that there is no evidence that the acts the plaintiff and his attorney have made use of advice from officials of the Bank, it is also true that no pleading shows that the staff of the Bank xxxx Iun which was to be the relationship represented clients with particular risk related to the transaction in the order of 12.6.2002 (GIACOMELLI bonds) and perspective the inadequacy parameterized investment risk profile of investors, nor the will to carry them to also purchase the product, despite the ' notice of non-suitability of the investment.
Indeed, neither the purchase order contains a clause of inadequacy, speficatamente represented and endorsed by the originator, nor was it to express its intention to purchase although Forss rapprestato that the investment did not show's suitability .
Nor is that some official of the bank Evve to represent the risk of insolvency of the issuer, the investment before or at a later date, or to propose or to divert investor interest to other forms of investment, is instead that the agent had to take the order without the allegation of having given any specific information on the product and have verified the adequacy of the same respect for the customer who requested the order execution, where the information from the rating agencies should have led to the promoter or caution, however, for adequate exposure to the customer of the elements that could lay down that specific investment.
But then, though, is certain that there is no revocation of the individual shops to buy the securities in accordance with and under the framework contract validly entered into between the parties, there looms formal defects or contrary to mandatory rules, the behavior of the Bank must be assessed in relation to the obligations assumed by it under its framework contract, where it was engaged in membership and in compliance with requirements of Consob Regulation 11522/1998 not to make orders investiemnto if after providing investors adequate information about the real nature of the transaction and the specific risks it entails (Articles 28 and 29 Rec. Consob 11.522/1998) and the obligation not to proceed with the purchase unless you have obtained in writing the investor will still proceed to purchase (art. 29, para 3 ° Rec. Consob cit.). On the form signed by xxx on 12.06.2002 the clause, on the willingness of that to make the purchase transaction even if the investor is not adequate, and despite being from Bank made aware of this inadequacy, it is not expressly mentioned and checked with the cross and therefore lacks any connection between negotiating the signing of the xxx at the footnote to the document of purchase order, and a clear intention to proceed with the investor 'investment even though the same had been specifically recommended as inadequate. In this regard, the Bank has become the defendant, indeed, appears to breach the contract and the breach has occurred. Not only the Bank, indeed, was required to provide the customer with specific information on the degree of risk that the purchase of the bonds in question involved, but in the face of an express decision by the prosecutor xxx xxx to proceed with the purchase, had an obligation to obtain a written order of acquisition of shares in issue by emphasizing the investor awareness as to the risks involved and the inadequacy of reporting that the agent represented , especially in the present case where there had been no preliminary investigations on the experience and knowledge of the client's financial struemnti, username investment objectives and risk appetite and economic capacity of the same. In other words, it must in any case, the broker provides the investor with adequate information on the specific operation requested, on the risks and the adequacy of the purchase, the investor's previously acquired. The failure of the Bank can not be considered minor and as such justifies the application for termination of the store of purchase of thiols occurred in June 2002.
contract should be clarified that the resolution does not invest directly qudro contract that, as the source of all the obligations assumed by the parties to each other, shall be deemed valid and effective, but covers only specific orders of investment, as individual orders for investment considrati as a single shopping mall, is also in place in the framework contract. The failure of
Xxx bank, in fact, refers to the failure to inform investors about the specific risks that entailed the purchase of bonds GIACOMELLI and failure to capture the customer's written order inmerito implementation of the operation, even in the knowledge of the relative risk, and not in compliance with the standards of performance and general reference or imposed by the framework contract. Although the individual orders are explicable by the investment contract qudro, they still retain their autonomy and negotiating the conditions relating thereto does not automatically invalidate the contract framework. The resolution of the shop
investment on 16.2.2002, concerning the purchase of 16,000 bonds GIACOMELLI F07 8.375%, amounting to € 16,069.60 includes the requirement by the Bank xxxx return to the actress of the amount stated, with interest at the statutory rate and the revaluation of certain equitable to the extent all-inclusive of 4% until the date the balance. Given the demand restitution of the bank's stakeholders must be declared to the Bank to repay the 16,000 bonds and the interest earned on such securities. No other payment is due by the Bank by way of compensation, failing which the plaintiff tried further damage caused in a direct causal relationship with the work of the Bank. The costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the defendant.
Osserva il Tribunale che, ai sensi dell'art. 23 del decr. leg.vo n. 58/1998, <>. Per giurisprudenza ormai prevalent, this Court agrees, the rule in art. 23, first paragraph of the Presidential Decree. legislative decree 58/1998, refers to the so-called framework agreement (\u0026lt;
Even the existence of the reported violations of the actress xxx with respect to transactions entered into dalla Banca in conflitto di interessi (art. 27, comma 2°, Regol. Consob), e alla mancata consegna all'investitore del prospetto informativo approvato dalla Consob e relativo a ciascun titolo e cioé il c.d. <
The Bank of Italy in the Economic Bulletin No 41/03 (doc. 8 of the defendant) and in CONSOB hearing 27.4.2004 in the Chamber of Deputies Finance Committee (see the judgments of the Court of Genoa 3 November 2006 No 3771 and No 1887/2006 and Court of Milan 07/25/2005) showed that the securities issued and purchased nsull'Euromercato, according to general practice, underwritten by institutional investors, are then traded on the secondary market without the requirement of delivery of the prospectus, unless the subsequent sale assume the characteristics of the solicitation to the public above. Indeed, it was argued by the CONSOB and the Bank of Italy that the subsequent sale to retail investors cd entails the obligation of delivery of the prospectus, when compared to a solicitation, there was a promotional activity qualifies as an offer, invitation to offer or promotional message, that such offer is addressed to a general public of subjects, they satisfy the adoption of standardized forms for conducting such activities. The absence of any evidence of recurrence of such elements in this case must be considered that the defendant had no obligation to release any statement on the securities in question and that it was entitled to negotiate on the tiotlo also called gray market , when on the one hand, professional investors buy securities from placement banks anticipating the moment of subscription of securities and their listing on the official market, shall negotiate with the other customers who request them through a mechanism similar alla vendita di cosa futura. Con i suddetti prospetti informativi non devono essere confuse <
Venendo poi all'esame degli asseriti comportamenti non regolamentari tenuti dall'istituto di credito e alle conseguenze lesive che ne sono derivate, la parte attrice ha sostenuto che la Banca ha violato gli artt. 21 del decr. leg.vo n. 58/1998 e 27, 28 e 29 del Regolamento Consob 11.522/1998 perch ha omesso di informare esso investitore sulla natrua dell'operazione e sui rischi e le implicazioni che l'acquisto in questione comportava, di valutare l'adeguatezza dell'operazione al profilo di rischio che l'investitore presentava, e per aver violato il divieto di dare corso all'operazione che si presentava come inadeguata al cliente, traendone conseguenze di nullità ovvero di inadempimento contrattuale.
Va a tale proposito evidenziato come alla stregua dei principi regolamentari sopra indicati la intermediazione di prodotti finanziari deve avvenire secondo regole di diligenza, correttezza e trasparenza nell'interesse dei clienti e il rispetto di tali regole, desumibili peraltro dai principi generali in materia di adempimento di obbligazioni da assolversi sulla base della natrua dell'attività esercitata e secondo i modelli del soggetto eiusdem professionis et condicionis, di cui agli art. 1175, 1176 II comma, 1374, 1375 c.c., trova riscontro nl comma VI dell'art. 23 TUF in base al quale " nei giudizi di risarcimento dei danni cagionati al cliente nei servizi di investimento e di quelli accessori, spetta ai soggetti abilitati l'onere della prova dia vere agito con la diligenza richiesta ".
Nel caso in oggetto, la banca convenuta si è del tutto sottratta a tale onere. In particolare allorché risulti necessario accertare la responsabilità contrattuale per i danni subiti dall'investitore " va accertato se l'intermediario abbia diligentemente adempiuto alle obbligazioni scaturenti dal contratto di intermediazione nonché, in ogni caso, a tutte quelle obbligatoriamente poste a suo carico dal decr. Les.vo 14.2.1998 n. 58 nonché dalla normativa secondaria, risultando così discipilnato il riparto dell'onere della prova: l'investitore deve allegare l'inadempimento delle citate obbligazione da parte dell'intermediario nonché fornire prova del danno e del nesso di causalità tra questo e l'inadempimento, anche sulla base di presunzioni; l'intermediario a sua volta deve provare l'adempimento delle specifiche obbligazioni poste a suo carico allegate come inadempiute dalla controparte e, sotto il profilo soggettivo, di avre agito con la specifica diligenza richiesta " (Cass. Sez. I, 17.2.2009 n. 3773).
Already the rise of very considerable value of intermediation emerging profiles of negligence on the part of the intermediary who, assumed this role, he did not hesitate in any way to acquire information about customers to learn their level of experience and knowledge of the financial market, its investment objectives, the size of the sums to invest, the risk appetite of the same, nor an expert to determine whether the customer was or was not willing to provide such information or to recognize those intentions or such objectives. This survey was much more apt in this case because the xxx, owner and contractor of the deposit at a ratio of brokerage, at the bottom of which is also the signature of her husband xxxx, had to delegate it to work on investment securities, agreeing in advance and without reservation the results of such an office, doing away with any doubt. However, given the intense operation of xxx on the securities account was not only necessary, but necessary, and also to protect the interests of the represented, today's actress xxx, which the bank agreed to acquire information to determine the actual profile investor, which was exactly the xxxx who, it was immediately put to work in the field of corporate bonds and emerging markets. In conclusion, the intermediary, contravention of specific regulatory measures, it was totally disinterested to know your customer, omitting any form of interevista or prior acquisition of relevant information, clearly preliminary and instrumental activities in order then to guide the customer in the choice of financial instruments, period (years 2001 to 2002) to run more profitable investment in the face of stock prices and bond yields with annual double-digit percentage, or to dissuade him from overly speculative investment as inappropriate to the objectives pursued, or unsuitable the profile of investors and its risk appetite, or even to proceed operation only on customer request in response to the reported inadequacy of the investment. Ultimately as an investment in financial instruments and xxxx xxxx perfeteti were two unknown to the intermediary, or such could be considered cnoscenza gained by the fact that he used to make purchases xxxx selected securities obblgazionari high profitability (and therefore high risk) where the highlights investor appetite for risk in practice but not accompanied by a preliminary assessment of it will not in itself constitute proof of the unique investment objectives pursued by the customer or the expression of knowledge by of these in the market, nor regarded as a symptom of a particular experience and management capacity that xxx would invest mainly in foreign countries on Compulsory emerging (Turkey, Russia and Brazil), the premise of all other forms of investment even longer term, if circumstances are within the common knowledge the usefulness and importance of diversifying investments and diluting the same in different financial sectors in the short and long period of time, equities and bonds, so as to rationalize the resources available to the ' non-institutional investor.
If it is true that there is no evidence that the acts the plaintiff and his attorney have made use of advice from officials of the Bank, it is also true that no pleading shows that the staff of the Bank xxxx Iun which was to be the relationship represented clients with particular risk related to the transaction in the order of 12.6.2002 (GIACOMELLI bonds) and perspective the inadequacy parameterized investment risk profile of investors, nor the will to carry them to also purchase the product, despite the ' notice of non-suitability of the investment.
Indeed, neither the purchase order contains a clause of inadequacy, speficatamente represented and endorsed by the originator, nor was it to express its intention to purchase although Forss rapprestato that the investment did not show's suitability .
Nor is that some official of the bank Evve to represent the risk of insolvency of the issuer, the investment before or at a later date, or to propose or to divert investor interest to other forms of investment, is instead that the agent had to take the order without the allegation of having given any specific information on the product and have verified the adequacy of the same respect for the customer who requested the order execution, where the information from the rating agencies should have led to the promoter or caution, however, for adequate exposure to the customer of the elements that could lay down that specific investment.
But then, though, is certain that there is no revocation of the individual shops to buy the securities in accordance with and under the framework contract validly entered into between the parties, there looms formal defects or contrary to mandatory rules, the behavior of the Bank must be assessed in relation to the obligations assumed by it under its framework contract, where it was engaged in membership and in compliance with requirements of Consob Regulation 11522/1998 not to make orders investiemnto if after providing investors adequate information about the real nature of the transaction and the specific risks it entails (Articles 28 and 29 Rec. Consob 11.522/1998) and the obligation not to proceed with the purchase unless you have obtained in writing the investor will still proceed to purchase (art. 29, para 3 ° Rec. Consob cit.). On the form signed by xxx on 12.06.2002 the clause, on the willingness of that to make the purchase transaction even if the investor is not adequate, and despite being from Bank made aware of this inadequacy, it is not expressly mentioned and checked with the cross and therefore lacks any connection between negotiating the signing of the xxx at the footnote to the document of purchase order, and a clear intention to proceed with the investor 'investment even though the same had been specifically recommended as inadequate. In this regard, the Bank has become the defendant, indeed, appears to breach the contract and the breach has occurred. Not only the Bank, indeed, was required to provide the customer with specific information on the degree of risk that the purchase of the bonds in question involved, but in the face of an express decision by the prosecutor xxx xxx to proceed with the purchase, had an obligation to obtain a written order of acquisition of shares in issue by emphasizing the investor awareness as to the risks involved and the inadequacy of reporting that the agent represented , especially in the present case where there had been no preliminary investigations on the experience and knowledge of the client's financial struemnti, username investment objectives and risk appetite and economic capacity of the same. In other words, it must in any case, the broker provides the investor with adequate information on the specific operation requested, on the risks and the adequacy of the purchase, the investor's previously acquired. The failure of the Bank can not be considered minor and as such justifies the application for termination of the store of purchase of thiols occurred in June 2002.
contract should be clarified that the resolution does not invest directly qudro contract that, as the source of all the obligations assumed by the parties to each other, shall be deemed valid and effective, but covers only specific orders of investment, as individual orders for investment considrati as a single shopping mall, is also in place in the framework contract. The failure of
Xxx bank, in fact, refers to the failure to inform investors about the specific risks that entailed the purchase of bonds GIACOMELLI and failure to capture the customer's written order inmerito implementation of the operation, even in the knowledge of the relative risk, and not in compliance with the standards of performance and general reference or imposed by the framework contract. Although the individual orders are explicable by the investment contract qudro, they still retain their autonomy and negotiating the conditions relating thereto does not automatically invalidate the contract framework. The resolution of the shop
investment on 16.2.2002, concerning the purchase of 16,000 bonds GIACOMELLI F07 8.375%, amounting to € 16,069.60 includes the requirement by the Bank xxxx return to the actress of the amount stated, with interest at the statutory rate and the revaluation of certain equitable to the extent all-inclusive of 4% until the date the balance. Given the demand restitution of the bank's stakeholders must be declared to the Bank to repay the 16,000 bonds and the interest earned on such securities. No other payment is due by the Bank by way of compensation, failing which the plaintiff tried further damage caused in a direct causal relationship with the work of the Bank. The costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the defendant.
PQM
[ omitted]
http://consumatoreinformato.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default 
0 comments:
Post a Comment