Tag archives for N.M. Rothschild & Sons

Round Up of Equity Release Decisions

Share

ERVA has compiled a list of known Equity Release Court rulings. The Courts have all found in favour of the victims and ordered the mortgage loans to be removed or have rendered the foreclosure proceedings invalid. In most, the Courts have opted to resolve the dispute by ordering a “restitution of benefits”, which means that each party should be returning what they took under the contract: the bank is made responsible to pay the interest and cover the investment losses, and the borrower is to return the sums paid to them at the outset.

In one case, the Court refused the bank the right to claim back the initial payment.

Some of these cases are under appeal and could be reversed although, we strongly believe it to be unlikely under the the prevailing mood against defrauding banks and bankers for their known misdeeds and mischief.

 

Landsbanki Luxembourg S.A. Vs. Borrowers. 25th April 2015 in Court of First Instance 8 of Marbella

The court invalidates the foreclosure proceedings against the borrowers and terminates the case on grounds that the lender Landsbanki Luxembourg S.A. had grossly failed to file the adequate documentation alongside the foreclosure petition.

As a result, the bank is barred from filing foreclosure proceedings against this borrower for good.

_

2 Claimants Vs. Danske Bank International S.A. 31st of March 2015, in Court of First Instance 2 in Benidorm

According to the Court, it is proven that we are before a contract known as “Equity Release”, named as “Home Income Plan” for retired people where the bank grants a loan that it is invested either directly or via a third party, retaining the lender a pledge over the investment, with a view to obtain sufficient income to finance the loan and hopefully, an excess that will supplement the customer’s pension.

The customers only received part of the loan, the balance being kept under control of the bank and later being invested through complex financial products, retaining the lender a pledge.

Court determines the nullity and voidness of an equity release mortgage loan on grounds that the clients had no financial or investment knowledge, professional or commercial experience, investment expertise nor sufficient academic training to understand, not even superficially, the financial product offered by the bank. It was also proven that the clients had not ability to select and validly carry out the investments in financial products as those where the loan was invested.

_

2 Claimants Vs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd. 7th of November 2016

            The Court rejects the allegation by the defendant that this is a simple and ordinary mortgage loan because the loan’s destination is predetermined, from the outset, to be invested in a complex investment fund. It is therefore a complex product that includes, inter alia, a loan that is conditional upon the following: the mortgage, the specifications in respect to the drawdowns and the pledge of the investment fund. It is therefore not possible to separate or demarcate the mortgage loan from the destination to be given to the capital.

The Notary that intervened in the mortgage loan was deposed in Court and he affirmed the complexity of the product.

The Court rules that the product does not adapt to the profile nor needs of the claimants i.e. retired pensioners that do not need to make any investment but resort to signing this contract because of the fear instilled in them of announced spectacular and horrific Inheritance Tax.

Neither claimant required this product at this point in their lives, as they owned unencumbered property with a stable financial situation.

The Court orders the Equity Release contracts null and void and orders restitution of benefits.

 _

1 Claimant Vs Surrenda Link Mortgage Funding NÂș 1 (SLM). 2nd of May 2017 in Court of First Instance 3 in Vera.

The Court determines that the Equity Release mortgage is null and void on grounds that it consisted of a complex product, that the claimants had no previous investment experience, academic education to understand the product they were purchasing nor there was any evidence that the claimants had ever in their life invested in financial products. It is also established that the claimants had not “investors profile”, not even conservative.

As a result, it is ruled that the bank breached the applicable laws in the matter and the equity release mortgage loan is declared void, ordering a mutual restitution of benefits.

_

2 Claimants Vs. Landsbanki Luxembourg S.A. 7th of February 2017 in Court of First Instance 4 in Fuengirola.

The Court determines that the product SITRA II (made up of a loan, a mortgage, an investment and a pledge) is a complex financial instrument whose effects depend, largely, on market values of impossible determination in the contracts, which are usually redacted in abstract terminology, and therefore only accessible to experienced people.

According to the ruling, the neither the defendant nor its agent O.M.M. made any attempt to ensure that a) the profile of the claimants was adequate to the product and they understood the complexities nor b) whether the information provided was clear, concise and transparent.

It is also added that at source, the documentation given to the clients was fraudulent at worst, negligent at best, and because of this the equity release is declared null and void, ordering the mortgage loan to be cancelled and the advance payment retained by the claimant in concept of damages.   

_

2 Claimants Vs. Landsbanki Luxembourg S.A. 11 of December 2014 in Court of First Instance 8 in Marbella

The Court determines that the equity release mortgage loan documentation given by the bank to the customers does not allow for an understanding of the product. None of the documents includes clear, concise, detailed or relevant information in respect to the functioning of the product or its financial consequences.

The complexity of the product resides in destining a large part of the mortgage loan to sign up a unit linked life insurance product that is made up of an investment fund. The information provided was manifestly insufficient.

The reality is that not even the bank provides a plausible explanation in respect to how does the investment of the loan through financial products work.

Because of these complexities, the bank should have carried out actions to ensure that the client knew exactly the different possible scenarios and consequences.

The Court determines that the bank misrepresented the real complexity of the product and therefore concludes that the client was unable to understand and accept the product validly, for which reason they decide to nullify the mortgage loan, with restitution of benefits.

_

2 Claimants Vs Surrenda Link Mortgage Funding NÂș 1 (SLM). 29th of October 2014 in Court of First Instance 3 in Torrevieja (Alicante)

The Court determines that the customers were classed as ‘retail’ and that, as a result, they should have been provided extensive and detailed information on different scenarios of investment performance, associated risks, ensuring that the product was suitable and that it was clearly understood by the customer.

The Court nullifies the mortgage loan and orders the lender to pay 40,000 Euros in damages.

_

17 Claimants Vs. Surrenda Link Mortgage Funding NÂș 1 (SLM).  30 of November in Court of First Instance 11 of Bilbao

Court of First Instance 11 in Bilbao has ruled that twelve mortgage loans valued at 6 million Euros, granted to British families mostly in the Malaga province between 2004 and 2007, should be declared void.

The Court dealt with this case as all loans were granted at a Bilbao Notary Public and the representatives of the lender, SL Mortgage Funding nÂș1 Limited (SLMF), were also based in the Basque city, according to Lawbird Legal Services S.L.P.

These loans were sold to attain a reduction in potential inheritance tax, since the mortgage would reduce the taxable value of the property, but also to supplement the modest pensions received by the owners of the properties.

Chester-based SL Mortgage Funding nÂș1 Limited (SLMF) had not applied for the necessary regulatory permits to legally raise funds from the public and provide an investment service, activities reserved and regulated by the Bank of Spain and the CNMV (financial regulator).

Despite not having any of the above authorizations, SLMF would lend but at the same time retain most of the proceeds of the loan, which would then be invested by them.

The ruling declares that “infringing the protocols set by the relevant administrative authority to supervise the disputed product is a regulatory violation that exceeds that of a mere breach of banking laws, such as misselling, so profusely dealt with recently in relation to the massive sale of complex financial products.”

The Judge held that in this case, the breach of public policy “is far more serious for it makes a mockery of a whole system of financial and banking supervision designed to prevent abuses to consumers and protect the stability of the sector”, and likens this behaviour “civil fraud”, which is any proposal that contravenes mandatory regulations or has a false or forbidden reason.

The sale of this product was conducted via commission-earning financial advisory firms, namely David Driver from OIB, Hamiltons Financial Services and Henry Woods Investment Management, based in Estepona, Marbella and Fuengirola.

SLMF also recommended a network of lawyers that created an appearance of seriousness, downplaying the extent of the lack of licensing requirements of the bank and the product.

According to Lawbird Legal Services S.L.P., for the claimants, the ruling confirms that operating in breach of mandatory banking and financial regulations makes the suspect a “boiler room”, -even if the company was legally operating in their own country- and allows the victims to rid themselves of a nightmare lasting for over 10 years.

The Judge concludes that the nullity and voidness should be made applicable to all contracts and agreements executed between the clients and the bank, applying the laws of contractual termination in odd fashion –albeit most favourable- as clients “will be able to claim what consideration they gave under the contract without having to return was given to them.”

 

Marbella Court orders Stephen Dewsnip to give an address for summons

Share

Steve Dewsnip has been formally ordered by the Marbella Courts to provide an address for summons, as petitioned by a Denia Court via a Search Warrant.

Mr. Dewsnip, who is ‘disappeared’ for the Denia Court where proceedings are currently underway against himself, Baron David de Rothschild and Mark Coutanche, is nonetheless alive and contactable when required to turn up in Marbella to testify tin favour of his old bosses, N.M. Rothschild & Sons, on other cases brought against the latter company.

As it happens, lawyers acting for ERVA turned up at the Marbella Court and requested the Guardia Civil, whom were handed  the document that is currently visible on this site, to warn the Judge -presiding over a case brought by victims of Rothschild- that Mr. Dewsnip was listed as a witness for the Guernsey-based bank.

So what exactly happened later is uncertain, as ERVA lawyers were not present, but it appears that when Mr. Dewsnip went in to the Court the Judge asked him not to leave straight after finishing his deposition as he had to be notified of a summons from a criminal Court.

Rothschild lawyers were needless to say outraged and were looking for those to blame for what they deemed underhand and disloyal tactics.

Meanwhile, we are eagerly waiting for news on Mr. Rothschild interrogation at the appropriate French Courts.

Baron David de Rothschild to Appear in Court

Share

DENIA COURT ORDERS SPANISH POLICE TO CONFIRM ADDRESS FOR HIS SUMMONS

The writ dated 14th of October 2014 -received by lawyers acting for a Rothschild victim yesterday- has ordered the following:

  1. Reopening of the criminal investigation (preliminary inquiries) that was provisionally set aside (the latter status was not made aware to us as we had thought it was ‘alive’; as it happens, it makes little difference from a practical point of view).
  2. Informing the Spanish Prosecutor of the Court’s decision.
  3. Ordering the claimants’ counsel to submit a criminal complaint, making it extensive to Baron David de Rothschild (the POA did not include him as he was initially not listed as a potential defendant) with a view to “guarantee his right to a legal defense”.
  4. Ordering the Police Forces in Madrid and Barcelona to verify whether Rothschild’s addresses in those cities are suitable for summoning Baron David de Rothschild and Stephen Dewsnip, with a view to being interrogated following an official indictment.

It remains to be seen how will the bank tackle this setback; so far, the Rothschild camp have stood firmly by their IHT mitigation CreditSelect loan product, deriding clients’ claims and being dismissive of the authority and capacity of Spanish Courts. 

BaronDavidDeRothschildSummons

Law Firm Requests Baron David De Rothschild Summon

Share

EXCLUSIVE: Marbella law firm demand summons for Baron David de Rothschild over expat action

The Olive Press newspaper has published that a law firm acting for equity release victims has demanded that Baron David de Rothschild appears in Court.

Mr. Rothschild, former Chairman of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, is considered to be the ultimate responsible person of allowing the bank’s advertising to be published in this country.

The referred literature includes an open invitation to register a Spanish property with a mortgage loan to, according to Rothschild, reduce Spanish Inheritance Tax.

Article 282 of the Spanish Criminal Code establishes the following:

Manufacturers or traders who make false claims or declare untrue features in their offers or publicity of products or services, so as to cause serious, manifest harm to consumers, without prejudice to the relevant punishment for having committed other felonies, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment of six months to one year or fine from twelve to twenty- four months.

The petition for formal indictement and summons has been filed through the Denia Courts, currently investigating a fraud claim institigated in 2011 by Fuengirola firm IURA.

Stephen Dewsnip and Mark Coutanch, both named and charged in the above criminal proceedings, have failed to attend a hearing and as a result, have been issued with 2 warrants.

Rothschild has been eagerly avoiding being linked to fraudulent lending and has denied liability.

Stephen Dewsnip and Mark Coutanche Avoid Denia Court

Share

Stephen Dewsnip and Mark Coutanche, once at the forefront of N.M. Rothschild & Sons in Guernsey, were responsible for selling over 100 tax-evading schemes to mostly British pensioners.

Alerted by the scam, and not the least the loss of their investments, victims of the Credit Select Series sham product filed a criminal complaint in Denia in 2011.

Shortly after, Stephen Dewsnip and Mark Coutanche were requested to attend the Courts; they were to be interrogated by lawyers representing the claimants, the State Prosecutor and the Judge.

What did they do? Avoid receiving service at all costs, even after knowing they were being sought in connection to the Rothschild Equity Release fraud.

3 weeks ago, Stephen Dewsnip attended a hearing in Marbella Courts, as a witness proposed by N.M. Rothschild & Sons in case relating to a civil action brought by a victim. Mr. Dewsnip was very accomodating and happy to assist on this ocassion and help his former employer.

But, as it happens, the Denia Courts are still in the search for an address where Mr. Dewsnip, and his pal Coutanche, can be properly summoned. 

So far, the ‘missing individuals’ have been issued with two “Address and Whereabouts Search Warrants”, failing to turn up.

The above orders could be soon replaced by the more annoying “Arrest Warrant” which, as one knows, implies spending time in the nick  if and when identified.

Rothschild Denies Responsibility Over Equity Release

Share

Claire Whittet

Attempts by MP Huw Irranca-Davies to seek a plausible explanation as to the purpose of the Credit Select tax-evasion facility, and the effects it has had on purchasers of this mortgage/financial scheme, has been met with indifference by an ubiquitous Claire Whittet, from Rothschild. The below email was sent to ERVA from the office of MP Huw Irranca-Davies, together with Rothschild`s formal answer:

Further to a recent meeting between representatives of Rothschild and Huw Irranca-Davies MP, the following letter was received. (attached)

Rothschild have agreed that this can be publicly circulated, so I have posted this on the ERVA site and Huw hopes it may be useful.(hopefully tomorrow/Friday)

Huw Irranca-Davies reiterates that he cannot – for reasons of parliamentary protocol and resources – enter into individual correspondence with individuals other than his own constituents. Where individuals have a direct or clear familial link with a UK parliamentary constituency you may want to approach the relevant Member of Parliament for that constituency. Huw is happy to discuss the issues with any other M.P’s and to collaborate where appropriate.

The Premier Group (Isle of Man) Limited Operating Clandestinely

Share

The CNMVÂŽs building

 

The Spanish regulator CNMV has confirmed that the Premier Group is a clandestine operation in respect to its activities in Spain. A letter received at the law firm Lawbird Legal Services lists a number of firms that have operated in Spain illegally, including The Premier Group (Isle of Man) Limited, SL Mortgage Funding nÂș 1 Limited and The Premier Balanced Fund PLC.

Other banks that have operated furtively are ABN Amro N.V. (Gibraltar Branch), International Property Finance (Spain) Limited, BNP Paribas Trust Company (IOM) Limited and Banca del Gottardo.

 

 

 

CNMVLetter10012014

The Premier Balanced Fund and Surrenda Link Mortgage

Share

 

The Premier Balanced Fund was described as an “experienced investor fund”, restricting it to people capable of understanding the risks, but they needed a lender who could come up with 40 million Euros to invest in their fund.

SLM Funding NÂș1 Limited won the tender process: it was selected by the Premier Group (Isle of Man) Ltd. to find those 40 million Euros, an order they carried out efficiently: Aareal Bank was convinced to pool resources, some say Rothschild too…

But there was an added element in the form of bricks and mortar: approximately 100 Spanish properties would be used as collateral to ensure that, if the investments went down, 200-odd British pensioners could be made responsible of footing the bill.

The “experienced investor fund” is now probably worth less than half and the ex- mariners, ex-policemen, house wives and other Spain-based retirees who were instilled with the Fear of God with the Spanish Inheritance Tax -and fell for the scam- have their properties, and lives, bogged down.

Perverse Nicky Flux, loyal till death to SLM, keeps sending her monthly letter out to pensioners…letters coming from a company that would disgrace any Nigerian 419 business.

Terms & Conditions

The Premier Balanced Fund plc (“the Company”) is an experienced investor fund and complies with the requirements of the Financial Supervision (Experienced Investor Fund) (Exemption) Order 1999 (the “Order”) of the Isle of Man. Shares in the Company are only available to persons sufficiently experienced to understand the risks associated with an investment in the Company and who are willing to invest more than the minimum specified in the Order.The Value of shares in the Company, and the income produced by them can fall as well as rise. Investors may not get back the value of their original investment.The Company, is not subject to any form of regulation or approval in the Isle of Man and investors are not protected by any Isle of Man statutory compensation arrangements in the event of the failure of any of them. The Isle of Man Financial Supervision Commission does not vouch for the financial soundness of the Company or for the correctness of any statements made or opinions expressed with regard to any of the same. It is the responsibility of any person/s wishing to apply for Shares in the Company to inform themselves of, and to observe, all applicable laws and regulations of any relevant jurisdiction.

I have read and understood the above information

   

Rothschild Claim Sent to Court “Procurator”

Share

The claim for Rothschild has been sent to the Procurator (last Friday) for formal lodging with the Malaga Mercantile Courts.

Missing documents pertaining to claimants (Powers of Attorney or Mortgage Deeds) can be added in the next few days.

On receipt of the stamped copy, we will be post the contents (except for personal data) on this website.

“ROTHSCHILD PRESENTS a TAILOR-MADE PRODUCT TO SUIT YOUR NEEDS” goes to COURT

Share

Below is an informative letter sent to Rothschild potential claimants.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

 

We hope this email finds you well.

 

 

The purpose of this email is to confirm that we will be lodging our claim against N.M. ROTHSCHILD & SONS for misleading and illicit advertising with the Courts in Malaga (Juzgados de lo Mercantil) next Friday 7th of June 2013.

 

 

We have experienced some delays due to not having documentary evidence which we consider to be relevant, as well as an unexpected Court filing fee that came into force shortly after our decision to file which meant that the case would have cost an additional 15k Euros to proceed with.

 

 

However, we can now confirm that we are now in a position to proceed as we have gathered a compelling amount of misleading advertising that constitutes the backbone of the case that is being filed with the Courts (to be posted at the ERVA -www.erva.es site over the weekend).

 

 

The referred to advertising was produced by Rothschild and also, by the IFA companies that were selected by Rothschild to sell the product. This advertising is false, untrue and encourages tax evasion by suggesting that Spanish Inheritance Taxes are so onerous that is nothing is done, inheritors of Spanish unencumbered property owners would be prevented from inheriting and the property would be lost to the Spanish State.

 

 

Other fallacious arguments include stating that the Rothschild mortgage is different from a normal mortgage, that the clients “
will not be exposed to unnecessary risks”, that the product “
is designed in such a way that it will potentially produce enough income to service the loan and also, leave a bit of money for the borrower”, that it is a “
responsible product” or “
similar to the Spanish reverse mortgage”, that Rothschild had “
restricted the availability of this product to handful of selected intermediaries” (Hamiltons and Henry Woods), that a “
Mrs. Smith (fictitious person) would have discovered following the death of her husband, to her horror, that IHT in Spain could reach 81.60% in Spain” (when the maximum liability of a spouse is limited to just over 34%) and many more.

 

 

Similarly, deliberate omission of the risks involved in the product are considered to be misleading and therefore, illicit. As an example, Rothschild deliberately concealed the consequence of the very obvious and unavoidable scenario where the investment does not cover the cost of the loan: you lose your home.

 

 

The writ includes several petitions to the Courts: that the advertising is declared illicit, that Rothschild runs at least 4 ads on the Essential Magazine rectifying the misleading publicity (at their cost) and that all contracts signed as a result of such publicity are set aside, restoring customers to their original position prior to signing of the Credit Select mortgage loan, insofar as is practicable.

 

 

Finally, we would like to stress that some IFAs are currently advising against going to Court and are recommending what is called as a “Standstill Agreement”. We would like to advise that such document is a legally useless agreement that does not deal with the fraudulent nature of the CreditSelect loan and is designed to buy time for Rothschild, who prefer to deal with the less belligerent children of their victims as they pass away. In other words, it is a cynical money-making ruse designed at the expense of perpetuating the suffering that N.M. Rothschild & Sons is inflicting on innocent property owners.

 

 

If you have not yet joined this case and you wish to, kindly reply to this email so that we can provide you with the necessary instructions.

 

 

With best regards

Sincerely

Skip to toolbar