110. From the judgments provided to the Court in which the Banco de Montevideo was found responsible, and that were not overturned by a higher court, it is clear that the civil courts considered that there had been irregularities in the consent given in three cases.188 According to these decisions, the Banco de Montevideo was acting as a broker when purchasing the Trade & Commerce Bank certificates of deposit or shares in them, and the Banco de Montevideo had not provided sufficient information to the petitioners during the process of obtaining their consent, because the said Bank knew about the lack of liquidity and subsequent insolvency of the Trade & Commerce Bank, and did not warn its clients of the risks.189 In particular, in two cases, the corresponding courts stated that “market transparency required adequate information,” and that “reticence in this regard is relevant and constituted civil liability.”190 Also, in another case, the respective court of appeal emphasized that “the continuation of the operation that the plaintiffs have been carrying out since April 2001 […] is not sufficient to conclude that they were convinced that their business was with a company other than the B[anco de] M[ontevideo].”191 188 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 “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 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15289 to 15363). In the case of Jorgelina Rial, even though the respective Court of Appeal retained the sentence against the Banco de Montevideo (although it reduced it) , it used grounds that were “partially distinct,” because it considered that the responsibility of the Banco de Montevideo arose from failing to comply with its obligation to provide information as a broker. The Supreme Court of Justice endorsed this assessment of the Court of Appeal and even expressly indicated that “the existence of inducing in error c[ould] not be shared.” 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 15339 to 15363). See also: Proceedings entitled “Adrien Clavijo Paulina v. Banco de Montevideo in liquidation et al. – Recovery of pesos – Damages.” File No. 259458/2005. Judgment No. 15 of the First Court of First Instance for insolvency proceedings of April 24, 2007, (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folios 13973 to 14027). In the last case, the respective Court of Appeal expressly established that, since the Banco de Montevideo’s failure to comply with the obligation to provide information had been declared, with its consequent obligation to make reparation, “it consider[ed] it unnecessary to make an analysis on the annulment of the contract due to fraud.” 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, folio 14009). 189 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 13991 and 13992 to 14027); 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 14963), and 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 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folios 15289 to 15363). 190 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 14917 and 14928), and 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 (file of attachments to the answer, volume VI, attachment 27, folio 15309). 191 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. 275 of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 26, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer, volume III, attachment 27, folio 14007). 48