Bank, if the account is jointly held, a double signature is required to invest in securities

Listen to the audio version of the article

It is null and void Framework ContractOf purchase of securities, subscribed by only one of the two investors. And, consequently, all purchase orders against both are void, without it being necessary to evaluate whether the other’s subscription was essential. There Cassation, with sentence 9331, in accepting the appeal of two savers against Unicredit, dictates a principle of law. The appellants, a married couple, asked to declare the investment contract void due to lack of written form, because the signature of the woman, joint account holder, was apocryphal. A reason that the Court of Appeal had considered insufficient to nullify the operation. In the opinion of the territorial judges, in fact, in the case of a joint account, there was the possibility of operating individually, with full validity of the act for both joint holders.

Purchase orders are not valid

A thesis that the Supreme Court “dismantled”, clarifying that «In terms of financial intermediation, the framework contract signed by only one of the two investors is void due to lack of written form (pursuant to Article 23 of the Consolidated Law on Finance) with consequent overturning of the purchase orders towards both, without the need to evaluate whether the participation of the other (whose signature in this case was apocryphal) was essential, since the contract in question cannot be classified as plurilateral (pursuant to article 1420 of Civil Code) but as a bilateral contract with a subjectively complex part”.

For the judges of legitimacy it is not, in fact, coherent “to admit the possibility of considering the participation of one of the contracting parties as inessential with the effect of derogating from the written form requirement in force for the type of contract put in place, nor would it be understood why the participation of one should be considered non-essential and that of the other instead yes” When there are two savers, as in the case examined.