THE SUPREME COURT OF LITHUANIA UPHELD THE COMPLAINT OF A NON-PROFESSIONAL INVESTOR REPRESENTED BY CONFIDENCE LAW OFFICE IN THE CASE AGAINST THE BANK

The client, while making an investment decision, suffered damage due to the bank’s failure to fulfill its obligations. The lower courts dismissed the bank’s violations, asserting that investing involves inherent risks, and an unprofitable outcome does not warrant compensation. The Lithuanian Appellate Court (LAT) found these conclusions unfounded, emphasizing that the case’s circumstances were not fully explored. LAT ruled that the bank, held to higher standards of professional activity, must properly inform non-professional investors about risks. It concluded that the bank failed to prove full disclosure of information on investment suitability, and the lower courts unjustifiably placed this burden on the non-professional investor.