Widower claims investment company's negligence lost him £20,000

Zejtun pensioner Angelo Zahra is calling on GlobalCapital Financial Management Limited to compensate him for damages he suffered through what he alleges was the firm's negligence and non-observance of laws and regulations.

A 78-year-old widower is demanding an investment services provider refund the sum of £20,000, plus interest, which he says it lost after he had been misled into investing in a high-risk product.

In a judicial protest filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court this morning, Zejtun pensioner Angelo Zahra is calling on GlobalCapital Financial Management Limited to compensate him for damages he suffered through what he alleges was the firm's negligence and non-observance of laws and regulations.

The Lifemark product he had bought into was a complex and high risk investment which had been classed as unsuitable for inexperienced investors, like the plaintiff and his late wife, by the MFSA.

Zahra had noticed that some documents, signed by himself and his late wife, contained declarations accepting unfair contract terms. Some clauses represented "unfair, misleading and prohibited commercial practises," he adds, claiming that the signatures had been obtained through “deception and trickery.”

The company had allegedly not consulted with the wife, nor had it carried out an assessment on the investment knowledge or suitability of the product for the couple.

Zahra is alleging that the company had initially failed to give him copies of the documents he had signed in relation to the Lifemark investment product, only beginning to do so after he had complained to GlobalCapital Financial Management in 2013- and then only via the MFSA.

The couple had filed their 2013 complaint after receiving a bondholder notice from Lifemark, informing them that the total eventual returns to bondholders will be approximately 12%-15% of the nominal amount of the investment and would be distributed over a number of payments.

An investigation carried out by the MFSA had found in favour of the couple, describing the sale of the product as “prohibitively prejudicial in various counts” and that GlobalCapital "did not appear open to the possibility of taking any steps to accept our recommendation in regard to the reinstatement of capital lost and interest."  

It recommended that the couple's capital outlay be refunded, together with compensation for interest lost.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti signed the protest.