cases, the Trade & Commerce Bank and members of the Peirano family were also found responsible.185 108. According to the evidence provided, the Court finds that, in the actions against the Banco de Montevideo, the courts of the ordinary jurisdiction examined the consent, the alleged defects in it and/or the said Bank’s obligation to provide adequate information, in almost all of the cases in which the petitioners raised these points.186 109. In some cases, the defect examined consisted in the failure to comply with the obligation to provide adequate information when the consent was given. In other cases, the courts analyzed the Banco de Montevideo’s compliance with its obligation to provide adequate information while the contract was being carried out, as well as under the corresponding consumer protection norms and the commercial code.187 184 According to the State, the cases of the following alleged victims are “final” or “closed”: (1) Nelson Bocchi Paladino and Juan José Paladino; (2) Marión Glaser; (3) Paulina Adrien Clavijo; (4) Jorge Marenales Escrich; (5) María Delia García Milia and Jean Leroy; (6) Marcela da Pena; (7) José Ángel Pastorino; (8) Jorgelina Rial Merola, and (9) Vivián Barretto. Cf. List of “Judgments in which Banco de Montevideo S.A. (in liquidation) has been sentenced and convicted by a judgment that has been executed to pay those who acquired shares in certificates of deposit issued by TCB Cayman Islands or securities of other of the Group’s companies” (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 5, folios 31452 to 31453), and file of actions filed against the Banco de Montevideo for investors in TCB that are closed (file of attachments to the State’s final written arguments, volume II, attachment 5, folio 31454). 185 Cf. inter alia, 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), and proceedings entitled “Cavanna, José et al. v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Damages” File No. 7-325/2003, joindered to proceedings entitled “Cavanna, José et al. v. Nuevo Banco Comercial et al. – Damages. Paulian Action” File No. 41-542/2004. Judgment No. 42 of the 12th Civil Court of First Instance of September 8, 2008, and Judgment of the 3rd Civil Court of Appeal of September 24, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume IV, attachment 27, folios 14515 to 14584). 186 The Court notes that the State provided an incomplete copy of the judgment in the case of the victim Fabiana Lijtenstein so that, even though it can be seen that a defect of consent is alleged, it is not possible to confirm that the respective court examined this. Cf. Proceedings entitled “Lijtenstein Jasinski, Fabiana et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. in liquidation et al. Recovery of pesos and Damages.” File No. 2-26975/2006. Judgment No. 12 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of August 6, 2010, and Judgment No. 215 of the 4th Civil Court of Appeal of October 1, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 15031 to 15082). The Court also notes that a defect of consent was alleged in the case of Nelson Espasandín Álvarez, which was not examined because the only defendants were the Central Bank of Uruguay and the Bank Assets Recovery Fund of the Banco de Montevideo, neither of which could be considered responsible for the loss of the funds. Regarding the Central Bank, owing to a “causal relationship between the action of the Administration and the harm suffered,” and regarding the Bank Assets Recovery Fund owing to “lack of legal standing to be sued” because it did not have legal status. Cf. “Espasandín Álvarez, Nelson Adriano et al. v. Central Bank of Uruguay et al. Action.” File No. 2-41576/2004. Judgment No. 53 of the 2nd Administrative court of November 5, 2008 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folios 14259 to 14299). 187 Cf. inter alia, 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 “Da Pena Marcela Adriana v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Damages.” File No. 222368/2006. 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 “Rial Merola, Jorgelina v. Banco de Montevideo et al. – Compliance with contract” File No. 40-226/2003. Judgment No. 6 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of March 22, 2007, 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 “Menéndez Ana María et al. v. Banco de Montevideo S.A. et al. – Damages.” File No. 40/159/2003. Judgment No. 14 of the 1st Court for insolvency proceedings of August 26, 2010 (file of attachments to the answer, volume V, attachment 27, folio 15176), and 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). 47