TERAMO. It is a passage of just a few lines but which, despite its extreme synthesis, indicates guidelines in the jurisprudential orientation for the matter of the former Tercas actions. Because the Court of Appeal of L’Aquila, in completely reforming a sentence of the civil court of Teramo which had not accepted the appeal of six savers, defining the bank’s information as “correct”, not only established that in the sale of the shares there was no adequate and specific information provided to customers on the risks associated with the operations but stated in black and white that “this court has already expressed its opinion in this sense in other similar cases with an orientation which it is intended to continue here too”.
An orientation that just a few weeks ago led the college of judges (president Barbara Del Bonoon the side Mariangela Fuina And Augusta Maxima) to accept the appeal of the six savers for a total compensation of around 100 thousand euros (all assisted by lawyers Renzo Di Sabatino And Massimo Cerniglia for Federconsumatori which has been following the matter for some time). Also in this case the contested facts date back to before the Tercas commissionership in 2012 and, consequently, before the entry of Banca Popolare di Bari. The judges write with reference to numerous rulings of the Supreme Court: «It is a principle that indisputably emerges from the entire referenced legislation on securities brokerage, the purpose of the information obligations incumbent on the intermediary is to enable the investor to make informed choices regarding the financial and equity product in which to invest in relation to his/her personal purposes”. And they specify that: «In the case in question the bank did not provide proof of having provided complete information on the inadequacy of the operation, with specific reference to the type of investment proposed, the profile of the individual customer and the degree of risk, illustrating in an analytical manner risks and benefits of the operation, limiting itself instead to considering the forms signed by the opposing parties to be exhaustive”.
The magistrates, entering into the specific relationship between investor and credit institution, specify: «In particular, no explanation has been demonstrated to individual customers of the reasons why, despite investors with little or prudent propensity for risk and with a history of investments of a not very speculative, they could or should have proceeded with highly risky and speculative investments such as the purchase of illiquid Tercas shares, outside the regulated market and issued by the same proposing bank, thus it was not proven that they were fully aware of the concrete risk relating to the individual position of each of them to which they could be exposed in the event of a purchase despite the assessment of inadequacy. With reference to the complete obligation of information on the part of the bank both on the security being invested and on the inadequacy of the operation, it must be noted that this information, on the basis of what has already been clarified, must adhere to the specific profile of the individual investor and not based on standardized formulas which otherwise translate into mere style clauses”.
©ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
