Recently saw the light sentence number 46 against the Bank by the known as < clip bankinter >. The Court of instance no. 7 Valladolid dictated it, and in this case the applicant was a commercial. The resolution goes on to say: the reality is that it is selling as a guarantee for the customer, it is actually a guarantee to the Bank; a product that does not correspond to what is advertised is being offered. And it continues considering that charge a fee for cancellation according to market at each date this situation actually is saying nothing, a meaningless generality of objective content. If the courts have so clear why banks do not accept amicably settle the swaps? Let us reflect: Are many 46 sentences? In relationship with many swap concluded? Estimated 200,000 sufferers in Spain, and specifically Bankinter holds ownership of not a few of them, since it was so to speak, the pioneer in its marketing. The business of banks in all the senses is a volume business.

They assume that a tiny percentage can be carried Jack in judicial water, but that much will pay settlements turned religiously and/or accept some kind of prestamizacion, every time that not a few affected swap lack sufficient resources to litigation. Why the Bank of Spain not investigates whether use of funds from the ICO has become to refinance and novar such products? That is an open secret. If not be aware by which these public funds which in theory should assist enterprises in difficulties they have not been well spent, it is because we do not want. Aware of such circumstances, our law firm if the claim of the customer understand viable agree in not a few cases agree the remuneration based on the result achieved.