Options
Ar galima finansų įstaigų civilinė atsakomybė dėl klientų nuostolių, patirtų investuojant investuojant finansinių priemonių rinkose?
Baranauskas, Kęstutis |
Žmonės visame pasaulyje savo pinigus investuoja į įvairiausias finansines priemones. Pasaulio praktika rodo, kad ne kiekviena investicija būna pelninga, kadangi finansų priemonių kainos nuolat kinta ir investuoti pinigai kartais būna prarandami. Dabartinėse finansų rinkose cirkuliuoja netgi tokių sudėtingų ir rizikingų finansinių priemonių, kad investavęs į jas asmuo ilgainiui gali ne tik prarasti visą investuotą sumą, bet dar ir likti skolingas. Žinoma daug atvejų, kai nuostolius patiria rizikos lygio ir finansinių priemonių sudėtingumo nesupratęs, nepatyręs investuotojas, kuris tokius rizikingus sandorius sudarė finansų maklerio rekomendacijų įtakoje. Todėl kyla natūralus klausimas, ar investuotojas turi teisę į žalos (nuostolių) atlyginimą, jeigu investicinių sprendimų priėmimui įtaką turėjo finansų įstaiga? Šiame darbe patvirtinama iškelta hipotezė, kad finansų įstaigos privalo atlyginti neprofesionalių investuotojų patirtus nuostolius, jeigu jos turėjo tiesioginę įtaką nuostolingų finansinių priemonių įsigijimui, patvirtinta. Neprofesionaliems investuotojams teikiamas investicines paslaugas reglamentuoja Europos Sąjungos ir Lietuvos administraciniai teisės aktai. Šių paslaugų teikimo atitikimą teisės aktų reiklavimams prižiūri Vertybinių popierių komisija, tačiau ši institucija nenagrinėja investuotojams padarytos žalos atlyginimo. Teisės aktai numato, kad finansų įstaigos privalo prieš teikiant investicines paslaugas surinkti visą informaciją apie kliento finansinę padėtį, žinias ir patirtį investavimo srityje. Finansų įstaigos klientams privalo atskleisti visą su investicinių paslaugų teikimu susijusią informaciją. Atsižvelgiant į apie klientą surinktą informaciją, finansų įstaigos privalo siūlyti tik tam klientui tinkamas finansines priemones. Šių reikalavimų nesilaikymas pažeidžia specialiuosius teisės aktus, kuriais siekiama investuotojų interesų apsaugos. Siekdami žalos atlyginimo, investuotojai gali reikšti civilinį ieškinį tiesiogiai remdamiesi Finansinių priemonių rinkų įstatymo nuostatomis ir reikalauti nuostolių atlyginimo būtent dėl šio įstatymo ir/ar poįstatyminių aktų pažeidimo.
People all over the world have been investing money into different kinds of securities for few hundred years and the diversity of securities of nowadays is extremely wide. Not every investment is profitable because it depends on a substantial number of factors that sometimes makes your money gone. Financial markets provides variety of securities that might be measured by different risk and yield. Non-proffesional (retail) investors sometimes suffer extremely big losses in financial markets because they tend to implicitly rely on their broker-dealer recommendations. This thesis is meant to find an answer if financial institutions hold civil liability in the case when their customers are financially harmed by such kind of securities investments that were done under influence or control of their broker dealers. The solution is aggravated by ordinarily contractual provisions stating that customer bears all the risk due to market falldowns, financial crisis, etc. This problem has never been broader explored in Lithuania by academic research and there is no case law yet. This thesis is likely to be the first attempt to analise the probability of civil liability of financial institutions due to their retail client losses. The proposed hypothesis tells that financial institution must reimburse the loss to retail customers if the investment decision was under influence of financial institution. It is supported under relying analysis and conclusions. The first part of this thesis intends to familiarize the reader with concepts of financial markets and types of investments. It distinguishes the scope of practice of financial intermediaries according to the service rendered for retail investors. The research concluded that investment services in Lithuania might be rendered only by licensed broker – dealer firms, financial advisory firms and banks. The three main types of services are: order management, investment recommendations and portfolio management. The retail customers are able to buy all kinds of securities with assistance of these intermediaries. The second part identifies the legal acts that are regulating the financial markets and the relationship between clients and investment services. The most significant law is the Market in Financial Instruments Directive (hereinafter MiFID), the goal of which is to build a single market for European investors and traders and to ensure high investor protection levels, especially for retail customers. It was implied in Lithuania in 2007 by adopting the Law on Markets in Financial Instruments (hereinafter FPRĮ) and several lower enactments which resulted in detalizing the obligations of financial institutions when rendering services to retail investors. Third part of thesis is focused on comprehensive analysis of the securities market authority - the Securities Commission of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – VPK), whose goal is to guarantee effective functioning of the securities market and investor protection. VPK has the right of policy making. By pursuing its goals VPK monitors the observance of special laws by financial institutions and other marketers. VPK has the right to examine the infringement cases after identifying the violation of securities law. In hearing such cases VPK usually establishes the actions that are held as illegal, and the level of guilt. Although it has a right to impose sanctions, VPK has no power of imposing compensation to investors, therefore individual claims for damages and civil liability are left for the civil courts. But there’s an important factor to mention that the essential facts of VPK decisions has a prima facie power and are likely to determine the result in the civil case. VPK decisions might be appealed for the administrative court and latter’s decision is considered to become a prejudicial fact in sense of upcoming civil case which means that the facts which were determined in administrative court can no longer be argued. The fourth part identifies principal reasons of retail investor losses that appears to be a result of financial institution’s fault and that might call for civil liability. Analysis of statistics enabled the author to determine two main problems of broker-dealer actions that might result in damages of retail customers. Those are the unsuitability of securities and wrong information (misrepresentation, omission of facts, etc.). Investigation of previous mentioned statutes revealed that financial institutions are obliged to collect vast load of information regarding every customer’s financial status, investment objectives, financial sophistication and experience, and general personal circumstances. According to this information broker dealer must properly select the securities that are appropriate to particular investor. The statutes also imply an obligation for financial institutions to reveal all relevant information that might effect their client’s investment decisions. In likelihood of conflicts of interests financial institutions must disclose all the circumstances of potential risks and further services are forbidden without the written consent of the client. The infringement of mentioned statute-based obligations is likely to be considered as breach of duty in sense of civil liability. The final part of the thesis contains two segments. The first one is a study of different obligatory duties of financial institutions due to the type of contract and then it explores the chain of causation by analising elements of civil liability. Previously mentioned supervisory statutes have a significant influence to private law, because the EU legislation and local implementing acts are of higher importance with regard to the Civil Code. As the Civil Code of Lithuania does not include an exact determination of investment services contracts, it means that every type of investment services is regulated by different norms. The analysis of different services displays that portfolio managers and their relationship with clients should be considered as one of a trust and a trustee. The order managing service is likely to be considered as agency. Agency relationship is usually established under Investment recommendations contract as well, because it’s rarely rendered without extra services such as order management. As statute-based obligations have direct effect in examining the civil case, infringement of statute-based obligations is considered as breach of duty. The broker-dealers are bound by professional civil liability as well. Relying on this analysis the proposed hypothesis, which tells that financial institution must reimburse the loss to retail customers if the investment decision was under influence of financial institution, is supported.