The supreme court has rescinded the ruling of the district court of Reykjavik but the court has dismissed the claim of AFL labor union about authorizing a duty on Landsbanki Islands and Landsvaki to hand over a detailed overview of assets of the money market funds of Landsbanki for the term from September 1st till October 28th 2009. The supreme court sent the case to a district court judge to review the case.

AFL and Landsbanki made an agreement about asset control of the medical fund of AFL. Landsbanki took the responsibility of "giving the clients advice regarding trades with finances, storing of it and asset control." The bank had full and unlimited authorization of arranging the assets of the medical fund according to the investment policy that had been set.

When the banks collapsed in October last year and setting the legislation about authorization of financial grants from the national budget because of the special situation on the financial market were all of the redemptions locked in the funds of Landsbanki. The fund members were paid out assets in the form of deposits and the payment ratio from the fund were between 60-74,1%. The medical fund of AFL received 68,8% of its assets.

Following that requested AFL detailed information about the assets of the funds from September 1st 2008 in order to evaluate if the investment policy had been honored in the operations of the fund and if the trades were normal. AFL thought that the overview of the asset control from January 1st 2008 till September 30th 2008 which the bank handed over was inadequate.

The claim had been too general

 The district court of Reykjavk approved as well as he lawyers of Landsvaki and Landsbanki that the claim of AFL had been worded far too generally and no clear lines. So it was not clear what documents were requested or if the documents were in fact available that fulfilled the claim that was set forward. The court could not avoid dismissing the case.

In the ruling of the supreme court says on the other hand that AFL had not had access to the documents and so not surprising that AFL could not describe the documents in any other way than generally. There was also a review of that the information duty of Landsbanki as it was described in the contract of the parties is very broad and not limited to granting access to documents that are available.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment