UFC QUE CHOISIR published an article titled “Humania Appraiser in Judicial Liquidation” on March 19, 2018, in which Attorney Bertrand de CAMPREDON is “quoted ” (unverified quotes) several times in his capacity as counsel for nearly 300 victim-clients.
While we welcome the press coverage of this complex case—which is significant in scope, particularly given the number of victims—we would nevertheless like to offer several corrections and comments.
First, regarding the corrections: it is not entirely accurate to state that Humania committed to “full reimbursement” in the event that the initiated proceedings failed.
In fact, on the one hand, although there were variations, an independent insurance company was to cover the claim; on the other hand, the reimbursement was not full, as it only partially covered any awards made pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure (an order requiring the losing party to pay the winning party’s attorney’s fees).
With regard to the “punitive component,” aside from the inaccuracy of the amounts cited under the Humania agreement, it should be noted that the situation is actually worse than described.
In fact, not only do clients who lost their cases not receive reimbursement for HUMANIA’s fees—particularly due to the dispute with GARANTIE ASSISTANCE— some of them are ordered to pay substantial sums under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as for the abusive nature of the proceedings (it is, in fact, not uncommon for the cumulative amount of the awards to exceed €10,000).
Furthermore, we note that there was an error regarding the sequence of the insurers, as GARANTIE ASSISTANCE was the first to intervene, followed by MUTUAIDE.
Turning to our comments, first and foremost, we would like to thank UFC Que Choisir for taking up this case and for being among the first to raise concerns about the plight of the hundreds of victims represented by our firm.
This article could prompt numerous comments on our part, but we will limit ourselves here to one observation regarding the final paragraph, which addresses the role of financial advisors (CGPs).
While it is true that financial planners (CGPs) encouraged their clients to sign the agreement proposed by Humania Consultants, we do not currently share the underlying premise of the UFC article’s conclusion—namely, that these planners bear any liability in this matter.
Although this liability cannot, of course, be ruled out in principle—particularly given that nearly 500 financial advisors marketed HUMANIA products, and that each informed and advised their clients differently— the very structure of HUMANIA products nevertheless seems to us to be incompatible with holding financial advisors liable.
In fact, at least two “expert” opinions—one from an expert on calculating the TEG and one from an attorney for the pre-litigation opinion—were issued before the client had to decide whether to sue his bank to challenge the rate.
Therefore, it is difficult to understand what else the financial advisors could have advised their client to do other than sign the Humania agreement, given that an expert certified that the APR was incorrect and a lawyer maintained that the case had a good chance of success in court, with the additional risk covered by an insurer who, on the face of it, gave no reason to believe that it would subsequently argue for the contract’s nullity.
