Investicinių paslaugų teikėjo pareiga informuoti klientą versus neprofesionalaus investuotojo rūpestingumo pareiga
LTStraipsnyje analizuojamas Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymuose įtvirtintos investicinių paslaugų teikėjo pareigos suteikti neprofesionaliam investuotojui visą reikalingą informaciją, kurios pagrindu jis galėtų priimti pagrįstus investicinius sprendimus, turinys. Kadangi nustatant investicinių paslaugų teikėjo atsakomybės ribas yra reikšmingas ir kitos pareigos – neprofesionalaus investuotojo rūpestingo elgesio – vertinimas, nagrinėjama ir ji, taip pat šių abiejų pareigų santykis. Svarstomos problemos aktualios ne tik todėl, kad mokslinių šios srities tyrimų trūksta, bet ir todėl, kad Lietuvos finansų rinka yra palyginti neseniai susiformavusi, o teismų praktika rodo, kad kyla nemažai ginčų dėl neprofesionalių investuotojų teisių pažeidimo. Straipsnis skiriamas finansų rinkos dalyviams, būsimiems investuotojams, teisininkams ir šia sritimi besidomintiems mokslininkams. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Investicinių paslaugų teikėjas; Neprofesionalus investuotojas; Investment services provider; Non-professional investor; Professional investor.
ENThe author analyses the content of the investment services provider’s duty to inform the client (the non-professional investor) and to provide all the information necessary to make the investment decision under the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. Taken into consideration is the fact that the duty of care to the non-professional investor is also established in the national legal acts, the author of this article interprets the relations and limits between the investment services provider’s duty to inform the client and the duty of care of the non-professional investor. While interpreting the content of legal requirements the objectives of national legislature should be taken into account — the aim to regulate the civil relationships by ensuring fair, open and efficient functioning of the financial market. However, the objective to ensure the fair protection of the non-professional investor’s rights should not be interpreted as the application of the investor’s duty of care, only in exceptional cases.The investment services provider has to give to the client and potential client the clear and understandable information necessary to make investment decisions. The duty to inform should be interpreted as the requirement to provide such information which would be sufficient for an average non-professional investor, but its content should not be extended as the investment services provider’s obligation to make sure what the concrete client understands. In all cases the information to be provided to the non-professional investor has to satisfy the criteria of clarity and completeness, whereas presentation of information in fragmented form and in different sources should not be regarded as clear and understandable information to the non-professional investor. The duty of care and diligence is extremely significant when accepting financial obligations. Non-professional investors must act reasonably and must take diligent care of their obligations, i.e. they have to behave as bonus pater familias would act in an adequate situation. The signing of financial documents should not be qualified only as formality — by signing the document the client undertakes the risk presented in it. [From the publication]
