111. In five cases in which the Banco de Montevideo was found responsible, the respective courts considered that, although the plaintiffs knew or should have known that they were undertaking a risk, they were not informed of its true magnitude, or they were not “warned of the real increase in the risk.”192 In these cases, it was considered that the Banco de Montevideo had failed to comply with “the most elementary rules of trust and the obligation to provide information which should regulate the relationship between a bank and its client,”193 or that it did not act “loyally in its relationship with the client,” because it had not provided information as it should have done on “the precarious financial situation of the Trade & Commerce Bank or on its overall liquidity problem, depriving the client of the opportunity to choose another type of placement with less risk.”194 Moreover, the obligation of the Banco de Montevideo to provide its clients with “reliable explanatory information” was stressed.195 In this regard, in a case corresponding to an alleged victim, the Supreme Court of Justice, when confirming the responsibility of the Banco de Montevideo for failing to comply with its obligation to provide adequate information to its clients, took into account that “the appellant’s decision to invest was preceded by a negligent omission by the Bank that prevented him from knowing the real economic and financial situation of the offshore entities and evaluating the risks of the said investment.”196 112. Also, in three of the cases in which the Banco de Montevideo was found responsible, the respective courts considered that the alleged victims had not given their express consent or authorization, because they had not signed a contract or had given contrary instructions.197 In one of them the Court of Appeal explained that “it is not 192 Cf. 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 “Bocchi Paladino, Nelson et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Preparatory measures.” File No. 22-458/2002. Judgment No. 12 of the First Court of First Instance of March 13, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13655 to 13686); Proceedings entitled “Rial Merola, Jorgelina v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Compliance with contract.” File No. 40-226/2003. Judgment No. 23 of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of March 12, 2008, and Judgment No. 138 of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 29, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15289 to 15363); 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). 193 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). 194 Cf. 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); Proceedings entitled “Rial Merola, Jorgelina v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Compliance with contract” File No. 40226/2003. Judgment No. 23 of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of March 12, 2008, and Judgment No. 138 of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 29, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15337 to 15363). 195 Proceedings entitled “Adrien Clavijo Paulina v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 2-59458/2005. 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 13991 and 13992 to 14027). 196 Proceedings entitled “Rial Merola, Jorgelina v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Compliance with contract” File No. 40-226/2003. Judgment No. 138 of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 29, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folio 15355). 197 Proceedings entitled “Grudzien Burstyn et al. v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Other Proceedings.” File No. 25-551/2002. Judgment No. 38 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of October 18, 2006, and Judgment No. 154 of the 5th Civil Court of Appeal of December 6, 2007 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13768 to 13654); 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 49