All individual investors who attended Bankia's IPO on July 20, 2011 will be able to claim.
As a result of the ruling, it is recognized that the bank's accounts were not correctly prepared when Bankia went public. Therefore, it opens the door for the 255.000 individuals who attended the IPO to recover their investment.
It will not be necessary to keep the shares (although the judicial claim would be different in each case). Those who still hold the securities acquired in the IPO must request the nullity of the contract. And those who have already sold the shares will allege damages.
The amount that can be demanded depends on the investment made. The shareholder who claims the nullity of the contract may demand the return of the amount invested plus legal interest. Anyone who claims damages may request reimbursement of the capital losses (the difference between the money he invested in Bankia and the price at which he sold the shares) plus interest. If at the time he took advantage of these capital losses from a tax point of view to offset capital gains, he will have to adjust this situation with the Tax Agency.
It is likely that the court ruling will order the bank to pay costs. But this does not necessarily have to cover 100% of the agreed fees. For example, some firms offer to represent the client for free but require in exchange to keep a percentage of the amount recovered (success fee).
The simplest thing is for the shareholder to seek legal representation or wait in case the bank decides to compensate the shareholders. But in the latter case we must not lose sight of the fact that there is an expiration period for the claim.
A period of four years is contemplated from when the damage was known. The most conservative maturity would be May of this year, if May 26, 2012 is taken as a starting point, which was when the group's accounts were restated. However, one could also take into account the reverse split, carried out in May 2013 or even the December expert report of the Bank of Spain inspectors, in 2014. However, some lawyers argue that the starting point lies in the moment in which the shares were purchased, so the deadline would have already expired.
