The Malaga Mercantile Court yesterday held a hearing on ocassion of a misleading advertising case against Nordea Bank Luxembourg S.A.¬†and its Swiss branch.
An overweight Jesper Hertz, for the defendants, lied to the Court shamelessly. He confirmed that the bank had never offered any tax or fiscal advertising, information or otherwise to clients and that all they did was offer investment advice. Jesper’s dishonest intervention depicted a scenario of deceipt and will be remembered as the worst example of the hypocrisy and underhandedness of today’s bankers.
Nordea’s legal advisor questioned the quality of “advertising” of the promotional literature, stating that it made it clear that such information was not advice, but a mere guidance.
They also referred to the date on the main booklet (2008), arguing that it would have been impossible for claimants to have relied on it.
Finally, they dismissed the information provided to customers as mere investment guidance, arguing that it was the loss of such investments that had prompted the Nordea’s clients to sue the bank, and nothing else.
Claimants were able to prove that Nordea extensive tax advertising was misleading, confusing and inaccurate with the aid of 2¬†Tax Office binding rulings, the expert witness opinion brought in by the claimants (Carlos Jimenez Dengra) and an abscence of any proof to the contrary by Nordea, save for half-hearted attempts to discredit the evidence brought in by the victim’s legal team.
With respect to the booklet date, it was held in Court that previous brochures (2005 and 2006) had inspired the 2008 booklet for identical paragraphs appear on both sets of promotional advertising. It was also held that no where in the advertising did Nordea Bank discuss the product as being an investment proposition but rather, a tax planning tool for the inheritors.
The case is ready for sentencing.