considered that it is usual banking practice or custom that, when acting as broker, this is done without any type of authorization,” but rather “the defendant banking entity [Banco de Montevideo], which admitted that it had acted as a broker, had the responsibility to verify that, in the contested operations, it had the client’s authorization.”198 In this regard, the said court emphasized that the usual practice was that there should be a “commission contract, containing a general authorization to administer the invested funds, or specific authorizations, before, simultaneous with or subsequent to the operations performed, indicating the client’s agreement,”199 and that, since the Banco de Montevideo had not been able to prove that it had a general or specific authorization to perform the banking operations contested in the complaint, and thus have permission to administer the plaintiff’s funds, it was responsible for the said operation.200 113. In this regard, the Court observes that, in several of these cases, the courts took into account the plaintiff’s profile in order to determine the existence of consent or of sufficient information.201 Thus, in one case, the court underlined that the profile of the plaintiffs was not that of an expert investor, but rather of a bank client, and that “[t]he average bank client is unaware of the norms and mechanisms that regulate a complex domain, such as that of finance.”202 Also, the corresponding court of appeal in the said to 14468), and Proceedings entitled “Pastorino, José Ángel v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 40-149/2003. Judgment No. 48 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of October 31, 2005, and Judgment No. 118 of the 2nd Court of Appeal of May 2, 2007 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 14910 to 14931). 198 Proceedings entitled “Grudzien Burstyn et al. v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 25-551/2002. Judgment of the 5th Civil Court of appeal of December 6, 2007 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13782). 199 In this regard, the respective Court of Appeal clarified that “these specific authorizations can be either written or verbal, but generally if they involve movements of significant volumes of funds, they are given in writing at some point. But what is not usual is that all operations, in any case, are carried out based on verbal, general or specific authorizations, without any brokerage contract, because no banking entity would take the risk with any of its clients of this way of proceedings as usual.” Proceedings entitled “Grudzien Burstyn et al. v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 25-551/2002. Judgment of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of December 6, 2007 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 13782). 200 Cf. Proceedings entitled “Grudzien Burstyn et al. v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 25-551/2002. Judgment of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of December 6, 2007, (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13780 to 13786). 201 Cf. inter alia, Proceedings entitled “Adrien Clavijo Paulina v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 2-59458/2005. Judgment No. 15 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of April 24, 2007, Judgment No. 92 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of April 16, 2008, and Judgment No. 275 of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 26, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13973 to 14027); Proceedings entitled “Da Pena Marcela Adriana v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Damages.” File No. 2-22368/2006. Judgment No. 21 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of November 24, 2008, and Judgment No. 61 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of March 25, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 14444 to 14468); Proceedings entitled “Pastorino, José Ángel v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 40-149/2003. Judgment No. 48 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of October 31, 2005, and Judgment No. 118 of the 2nd Court of Appeal of May 2, 2007 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, folios 14910 to 14931); Proceedings entitled “Marenales Escrich, Jorge et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. (in liquidation) et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 2-3004/2006. Judgment No. 138 of the 6th Civil Court of Appeal of July 16, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15002 to 15011), and Proceedings entitled “Menéndez Ana María et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Damages.” File No. 40/159/2003. Judgment No. 14 of the First Court for insolvency proceedings of August 26, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15176). 202 Proceedings entitled “Da Pena Marcela Adriana v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Damages.” File No. 2-22368/2006. Judgment No. 21 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of November 24, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 14456); Proceedings entitled “Adrien Clavijo Paulina v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 2-59458/2005. Judgment No. 15 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of April 24, 2007, and Judgment No. 92 of the 2nd Civil Court of Appeal of April 16, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13984, 13989 and 14008). In this regard, the court of first instance indicated that “the profile of the plaintiffs, according to the testimony received during these proceedings, is not that of an expert investor, but rather of the client of the bank who wants to have his 50