Supreme confirms swap annulment of Santander Totta – publico

                 

                         
                     

                 

 
                         

The Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) confirmed the judgment which had condemned the Santander Totta to pay 2.2 million euros to a company with which it concluded a contract swap void, said this Tuesday Lusa the plaintiff’s attorney.

                     

                         Earlier this year the bank had been ordered to return 2.2 million euros, plus interest, to Desktop Factory company of wedges, Lousada, but filed an application for annulment which has now been rejected by the court, which “confirmed the decision Previous “said Pedro Marinho Falcão.

According to the lawyer,” before strengthening the confirmation of the Supreme Court for payment by Santander Totta, this bank can not appeal the decision. “

Contacted by Lusa agency official source Santander Totta said, however, that the bank is “to consider the possibility of asking the standardization of jurisprudence”, since there are two decisions of the Supreme – one on company Cardoso Costa and construction and another involving Turismadeira – “where the judgments are contrary to this”

At issue is an interest rate swap agreement between the bank and the Lousada company. Wedges of Paper factory, which however went bankrupt and changed its name to Sweatbusiness.

According to Marine Falcon, the court decision was due to the understanding by the Supreme Court of character “speculative and therefore null”, the contract, since “there was a real risk coverage inherent in a loan agreement.”

“Why is it that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that this contract was speculative? Because the relationship between the bank and the client there was a real risk coverage inherent in a loan agreement, but only a contract whose logic was based on a random element, which was an increase or decrease in interest rates. If the interest rate increase, the client won. If decrease, the customer had to pay the bank. Stray from any type of financing agreement, this is a purely speculative contract, “argued the lawyer speaking to the Lusa agency.

By understanding that the contract is speculative, he explained, the Supreme Court concluded that it is null, for violating the public order and constitutional rule, Article 99, under which it is not allowed to carry on speculative activities that jeopardize the public interest.

“There is therefore a result of this decision STJ, a clear logic of protecting clients against financial activities, banking, speculative “, synthesized, summarizing the Supreme Court’s judgment, to which the Lusa agency had access.

Peter Marino Hawk ranks decision STJ as a “standard-bearer”, stressing that “led to several other cases were analyzed, particularly involving the Santander Totta and different companies.”

In 2012, the first instance of Lisbon had already decreed nullity of contract & lt; i & gt; swap & lt; / i & gt; between Santander Totta and the wedges Paper Mill, a later reiterated by the Court of Appeal decision, albeit with a different argument, then having the Santander appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice.