In essence, the credit institution should have pointed out that the financial investment, with regard to the securities involved in the transaction, was risky. For those who have suffered, therefore, a loss from a financial investment, the solution can be found in the incorrect customer profiling.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The bank is guilty of failing to provide them with information regarding the risk of loss of capital that the financial transaction entailed and the highly speculative nature of the transaction itself, having faced investors who are not qualified or professional operators. Consequential, therefore, is the obligation for the credit institution to compensate investors who have suffered a large loss due to a risky financial transaction consisting in the purchase of securities.
The bank was ORDERED TO REFUND. In fact, the Supreme Court held the BANK GUILTY THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE SUITABLE INFORMATION TO LITTLE EXPERT INVESTORS.
What should the credit institution have evaluated in case of a risky financial investment?
Defensive objections proposed by the bank rejected. The judges underline, first of all, that the investors were subjects not falling into any of the categories of qualified investor, for which the bank should have complied with the related disclosure obligations.
To have a winning legal opinion.
In essence, the bank should have qualified the operation as inadequate, due to the low risk profile of the investor, as well as the high risk profile of the securities involved in the operation, and, consequently, should have refrained from carrying out the transaction. ‘operation. (Order 17556 of May 31, 2022 of the Court of Cassation).
Do You have suffered a loss from a risky financial investment, contact us by clicking below.
Avv. Leonardo Andriulo – expert in litigation against banks.