Tag archives for Rothschild Bank International

International Property Finance (Spain) Ltd. loses right to file an answer to a claimant’s civil suit

International Property Finance’s bid to have its response writ accepted by a Fuengirola Court has been rejected for being filed late. “IPFSL”, an Rothschild’s offshoot that operated in Spain without regulatory clearance, failed once again to respond within the time limits of civil litigation procedural law.

Strangely enough, “IPFSL” registered its interest in the equity release case on the 19/11/18 but only submitted its response to the claim writ in February 2020, that is, almost 14 months later.

Lawyers acting for the claimant, Lawbird Legal Services SLP, believe Rothschild bank does not wish to have to defend claims filed against a non-regulated dependent entity -a decision largely based on reputational motives- and yet, are trying to delay the case as much as permissible under existing laws.

Co-defendant Swiss Life Luxembourg S.A., where the proceeds of the mortgage where invested through, is also in default and will not be defended in the up and coming trial, to be held within the year.

Rothschild Contests Misleading Advertising Claim


Update from the Malaga Courts: Rothschild finally submits defendant’s writ to the claim brought by victims of the tax-evading CreditSelect Loan.

The allegations contained therein could hardly be more implausible:

  1. That NM Rothschild & Sons has no relationship whatsoever with the advertising, only attributable to RBI (Rothschild Bank International). Now if we click on the above logo, it takes us a firm whose corporate website happens to be hosted by NM Rothschild website.
  2. That both are two distinct companies that do share the same name but are, nevertheless, separate entities, strange coincidence we’d say…
  3. That NM Rothschild & Sons intervention was that of being a ‘mere’ lender and consequently, is not responsible for the advertising promoted by RBI and as a result, cannot be sued (NM Rothschild tries to dissociate itself from RBI only to admit that the product was promoted by RBI and granted  by NM Rothschild…can anyone make sense of this?).
  4. That the equity release product was created by Hamiltons Financial Services and Henry Woods Investment Management, and not NM Rothschild who, they insist, was a mere innocent lender.
  5. That the advertising fby RBI was backed by Uría & Menéndez, top Spanish law firm who in 2004, drafted a comprehensive tax report and has to therefore be deemed bona fide.
  6. That Mr. Nott’s affidavit is biased and consequently, untrue (showing great concern too in respect to Mr. Nott’s comment that Rothschild did provide financial advice).
  7. That whatever the advertising was- never mind the Spanish Tax Office- it was all true because a Uria & Menendez sanctioned it (aside from conveniently manipulating the report to avert responsibility).
  8. That the clients could not prove that they’d read the advertising! This very shameful allegation should embarass any person, let alone a 300-year old lender. As it happens, the laws are able to cope with even the most devious operators, such as Rothschild: read the term “Probatio Diabolica“.
Skip to toolbar