Judgement opens for huge lawsuits

Ivar Petter Røeggen won the first round against DnB NOR. PHOTO: KNUT SNARE

Ivar Petter Røeggen won the first round against DnB NOR. PHOTO: KNUT SNARE

Customer lost 230,000 NOK, and many other plaintiffs are getting in line.

DnB NOR was convicted in the Oslo District Court to have given insufficient information on savings products DnB Equity Index Global Bond 2000/2006 and DnB share index Bonds Sector 2000/2006, which inflicted the customer, Ivar Petter Røeggen a loss of 230,000 kroner.

The majority finds that Røeggen must be fully ruled in favor of his assertion, and made as if the agreement had not been made, writes the court’s majority verdict.

Moreover, it says to read the court doubts that Røeggen had gone into the agreement if he had received correct information about the products.

Expecting appeal

At DnB NOR, we are now going through the sentence, to consider a possible appeal.

“We just received the verdict in house, and will spend some time looking at it. Immediately, it seems to be several things we disagree on, and expect therefore to assess whether we will appeal in a short time,” says Chief Information Officer Thomas Midteide at DnB NOR to Aftenposten.no a half hour after the bank have received the verdict.

He shows that the judges were divided in their opinion of the case.

Shared rights

One of the co-judges made several dissents in the ruling, while primary judge and the other co-judge agreed to give Røeggen virtue.

One co-judges note the following sentence:

“The bank must be acquitted. The agreement was entered into voluntarily, and Røeggen has confirmed that he read and understood what he signed. It is natural that he regretted the investment today, but that’s hindsight. He must take responsibility for their own investment decisions. ”

It is expected that this case will go all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Bank gets two weeks in which to repay the 230,000 NOK.

Court Officer (primary judge) thinks DnB NOR should pay court costs. This, however, the two lay judges disagree, and thus avoid bank to cover the costs.

Read More: Aftenposten

You may also like...