-The first action has been filed and, upon a relevant application for priority hearing filed by our firm, said action is being tried after almost one and a half years while the anticipated hearing date prior to this had been set at late 2017.
- The lawsuit -which amounts to 280 pages- constitutes a complete, comprehensive and of high standards composition of our case and is based on a two-part reasoning:
Firstly, on the objective and fundamental fact that during the issuance of the CoCoCos (2011), the provision concerning non-payment of interest were already in effect, whereas in the future it was certain that the CoCoCos would be converted into shares. Therefore the Bank of Cyprus mislead the public regarding its true financial condition and used CoCoCos as a “cushion” for absorbing the already existing damage (damages which the Bank concealed) and secondly, on the subjective stage of CoCoCos sale-promotion to the Bank's clients.
- Our evidence concerning the first part in relation to the CoCoCos issuance include the Expert Report filed by an international auditing firm in combination with the classified Alvarez&Marsal report, an internal letter of the Bank of Cyprus, relevant decisions of Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission as well as several other pieces of evidence. In this way it is proved that even the most high risk investor was mislead, as the Bank concealed its true financial condition and therefore nobody could have known, during the aforementioned issuance, that the Bank was unable to return the invested capitals in CoCoCos. It should be moreover highlighted that we are the only party offering an objective aspect concerning the liability of the Bank of Cyprus, in order to cover each and every case of CoCoCos sale to any party.
- Our evidence for the second, and more demanding, in terms of proof, part of the CoCoCos sale include the findings of the Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman along with the internal documents of the litigant Bank we have at our disposition.
- The next actions shall be filed in the near future. In each action a detailed categorization of the customers is done in order for each category to contain only similar cases. Moreover, in each case's action separately, a more specific lawsuit about 10-12 pages is included, in which each case individually is thoroughly analysed. When our firm's lawyers undertake the drafting of each case's individual history, they contact our clients and are informed by them of all the necessary details in order for the said history to be complete.
- In the first lawsuits, individuals with a “clear” investment profile have been included and the rest of the cases shall follow-up in a similar way. We should once more clarify that if someone had some shares in his portfolio or had developed a more high risk investment activity we may, again, due to the objective fact described above (first part of the lawsuit) claim the total of said party's lost capitals.
- Our firm, upon negotiation, has also undertaken on your behalf the receipt of any case-related document from the litigant Bank.
- The aforementioned procedure proved to be significantly time-consuming as for our first clients we received a full file from the Bank on 30.10.2013. For the remaining clients we expect an answer within the next 60 days. It is self-evident that for your own protection we cannot file a lawsuit if we have not first confirmed the total of the documents you have signed.
Finally, we should clarify one particular point of the case which has led to confusion: Piraeus Bank bought specific assets of the Bank of Cyprus branches in Greece. We thoroughly studied this agreement and it is uncontested that, despite our hopes, Piraeus Bank did not purchase the liabilities arising from the faulty provision of investment services from the branches of Cyprus Bank situated in Greece. The agreement was such that ensured the non-assumption of said liabilities and on the other hand, the CoCoCos have already been converted into Bank of Cyprus shares. That, which many interpret as a buyout and claim the opposite from the aforementioned, is based on the documents sent by Piraeus Bank as custodian on which the CoCoCos are noted (KYPRO3 or KYPRO4). Indeed, Piraeus Bank undertook the custodian services of the Bank of Cyprus, namely took on the “protection” of the investment products someone holds within his portfolio (shares, bonds, etc.) and nothing more. For this reason, the aforementioned document was not received by those who had a different bank, and not the Bank of Cyprus, as a custodian. More specifically during our meeting, cases were mentioned of those individuals with EUROBANK or ALPHA BANK as custodians, who have not received said document.
All the above mentioned evidence is at our clients' disposition, available to be studied at our office, following an appointment.