The banks do not raise their heads. After a black October marked by the flight of capital the fall of the price derived by the Catalan, November arrives with a great judicial trick. The Supreme Court has issued a judgment declaring the partial nullity of multi-currency mortgages. It happened in May 2015 with the ruling on the ground clauses. The one handed down today against Barclays marks the case law to follow in all similar proceedings. The lack of transparency in its commercialization has generated a serious imbalance in the clients. Assures goes against the requirement of good faith that presumed to the financial entities.
If the mortgage contract completely canceled, the affected would have to return at this time the entire loan. The partial nullity implies, according to the ruling that the mortgage renamed to euros from its origin. That the bank is obliged to recalculate the entire loan and return the amounts collected in excess from the moment of the subscription of the financial product or since the annulled clause began to take effect.
You will also have to pay back what you paid less
That is almost half the impact of floor clauses. It is difficult for the bank to have to disburse that entire amount. The ruling of the Supreme Court emphasizes that it declares null the mortgage when it has not commercialized with sufficient transparency. It happened with the ground, implies that each of those 70,000 affected would have the Courts to prove that in their case the bank did not inform them adequately. A possibility many experts are reluctant to assume, since they consider that the profile of the clients. This product was offered was medium-high with a sufficient profile to know that foreign exchange products always generate a risk.
On the other hand, recalculating the whole mortgage will not be so beneficial for some. Who hired the product in 2007 or earlier could enjoy months. The regularization would also imply adjusting, in this case upwards, the interests of that period. When the record reached highs and the banks sought to offer their clients more select cheaper financing alternatives. Among them were multi-currency mortgages referenced to yen or Swiss francs.
The problem is that, as the defense lawyer before the Supreme Court has argued. The banks commercialized these mortgages. The financial markets were already working with the expectations published by the Bloomberg agency. Both the yen and the Swiss franc were in an uptrend. One circumstance, which the Supreme Court has proven, did not communicate to its clients with adequate transparency.