OREANDA-NEWS. April 08, 2013. The Lithuanian Court of Appeals ruled on an appeal from the 7 December 2012 decision of the Vilnius Regional Court submitted by a SNORAS bond holder (the appellant).

The appellant asked the Lithuanian Court of Appeals to repeal the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court, where the court did not sustain his request to annul bond subscription agreements and to treat the amounts subject to insurance payments in accordance with the Law on Insurance of Deposits and Obligations to Investors. Before the court the appellant claimed that SNORAS failed to provide him with possibility to properly evaluate the risks pertaining to conclusion of bond subscription agreements.

In its decision, the Lithuanian Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court. The Lithuanian Court of Appeals referred to the fact that the appellant has certified by signature that he is familiar and agrees with the Prospectus and Final Terms of the bonds and that he was acquainted with all risks that arise while investing and understands their consequences. The appellant also confirmed that he had received the description of financial instruments types and their inherent risks.

On the basis of these grounds the Lithuanian Court of Appeals held unfounded the appellant’s claim that SNORAS failed to provide him with possibility to properly and fully evaluate the risks of concluded agreements and possibilities to execute them.

Moreover, the Lithuanian Court of Appeals stated that since, as the appellant claims, he signed bond subscription agreements without having examined thoroughly the potential risks and conditions of the agreement, he was insufficiently attentive and careful, therefore he must accept the subsequent legal consequences.

The Lithuanian Court of Appeals also referred to article 3 of the Law on Insurance of Deposits and Obligations to Investors, which expressly states that bonds issued by the insured may not be an object of insurance. At the same time, the Lithuanian Court of Appeals confirmed that none of the documents connected to bond subscription agreements contained any provision as to mislead the appellant about inapplicability of insurance to the bonds.

This decision of the Lithuanian Court of Appeals came into force upon its adoption.