The multinational company must have thought this was a good solution/idea since they had copied and started selling this design a couple of months later.This is when ZoMummade contacted us and asked if anything could be done. It wasn´t an easy situation for them since they aren´t a large company and they hadn´t patented their design.

The only thing that was to their advantage was that they were first to market the aprons. We agreed that the best solution was to try to reach a settlement because they were mostly interested in halting the production and the sales and not winning a trial. We sent a demand letter to their legal department in which we demanded that they should immediately halt sales and withdraw the products from the market.

Even though the market manager claimed the product was of their own design, their legal department decided to withdraw the product from the market and redesign their on-going big marketing campaign in which they were focusing on the school starting back. Once we had solved their problem, we advised them how they should protect their products in the future to avoid getting into similar situations.

His son was the vice president at the office so Ramón trusted him blindly. He invested in subordinated bonds. According to the information he received, the money was guaranteed and he could recall his investment at any time. But in reality, the fine print in the contract said he would not be able to get his money back before 2018. By this time Ramón would have turned 94 and it was very likely that he would need his savings before that time.

When Ramón came to our office, we first tried to reach a settlement with the bank but our attempts were fruitless. Therefore, we decided together with Ramón to sue the bank. The district court ruled against us because the judge agreed that no son would deceive his father knowingly. We appealed to the court of appeal who ruled in our favor, as well as the supreme court.

In accordance to the ruling, the son´s intentions is not relevant but the bank has an obligation to give correct and enough information to the customer before signing the contract. If this, as in Ramóns case, does not happen, there is an assumption that there isn´t any consent to be a part of the contract.

They had both been unemployed for some time and four adults and two children were living off one salary, a situation that would not be sustainable for long.
They had tried to find a solution together with the bank where they would pay a lower monthly fee, but the bank had turned them down and instead offered them a worthless product. The bank did this despite knowing that their monthly fee would decrease within two months and there wasn´t any need for another product.

The bank sold them an interest-derivative as if that would function as an insurance in case the interest went up. What the bank didn´t tell them was that the interest had already dropped and would continue to descend. Furthermore, they disregarded telling them that they would be in debt to the bank for the derivative when the interest dropped.

If they already had trouble making ends meet at the end of the month, the added cost of the derivative made it impossible. They could no longer manage their payment plan for the house. They tried to pay as much as possible but one day they got word that the bank had filed for seizing the two houses the couple had used as insurance for the loan.

We agreed with Laura and Juan that we should sue the bank. The district court ruled against them. The judge felt that even if the bank hadn´t fulfilled its obligations, and even if the product was harmful for the clients, no one had forced them to sign the contract. If they couldn´t understand the terms in the contract, they should have sought out advice before signing.

We appealed to the court of appeal who found in our favor. According to the verdict, and current practice according to the Supreme Court, the bank has all the information and is obligated to inform its clients so that they have full knowledge about what they are signing.

Josep was already retired when we came into contact with him. Josep is a fictitious name since he prefers to stay anonymous. He was devastated when he came to the office. His previous companion had caused him massive problems. Joseph had left the company more than 5 years earlier, when he sold his share of the company to his partner for 1 euro but he still received claims from sub-contractors, the tax agency, and other debtors.

He received these claims in a role as creditor in a company he had no part in dating back several years. What Josep didn´t know was that his companion never registered the sale of Josep´s shares. When the first claims came, Josep was scared by the large amounts they were demanding from him. To such a degree that he decided to divorce his wife so that they would not lose the apartment they were living in together with their daughter.

The demands kept coming, the bank were asking for payments for the company and the tax agency sent a claim for 30.000 euros, which made him contact our firm. When he came to us, the only thing he asked was if there was anything to be done at all, and even if he thought it was impossible. There were in fact options available. The first step we took was to appeal against the claim from the tax agency. There were some tough months for our client before we received the decision from the tax agency. It was worth it in the end as we got a positive ruling and they cleared Josep´s debt in full.

We also appealed against the VAT-claims from the company after Josep had left the company, and there as well, we won against the tax agency. Meanwhile, we started a litigation process against his former companion so that he would take full responsibility for all the debts that had come in after Joseph had left the company.

Finally, we also negotiated with the bank and other creditors for the debt Josep had run up in the process of paying off the debts connected to the company. We managed to get a good deal with writing off large parts and a payment plan for the remaining part.

In the end Josep could finally enjoy his time as a retiree, something he wasn´t able to do before.

Our first contact with David was just to find out if he had a case or not. He had read in the news and heard on the radio about cases involving ”interest floors” and he wanted to know if his loan had one. After we looked through all the documentation, it was clear that he had an interest floor for 3%.

Which meant that even though he should be paying interest of 0.93% he was paying 3%, which meant 2% more than he should be paying. After this he wanted to know what his options were and how big a return he could claim from the bank. We explained to David that we consider these cases as being cases involving basic rights, and that we therefore have lowered our fee to a minimum.

We have done this so that clients, even though they have the law on their side, won´t be discouraged from seeking out justice. Since the client must spend a lot of money to pay for lawyers and legal representative he/she is often deterred from seeking justice in court, despite the fact that the judge in all probability would have ruled in their favor.

The judicial process is very slow, and the clients must put up a relatively large amount of money in comparison to what they get in return. This is why the bank can continue acting in conflict to current law, because it knows that the clients will think twice if it´s really worth claiming their money back.

With David, things were different. Since we had lowered our fee, he didn´t have to think long, and shortly after we had filed our suit against the bank, we reached a settlement. In the end, the bank repaid David the amount he had overpaid due to the interest floor. A sum of 10.699 Euros.

The Spanish prosecution service is starting a cooperation with Nilsson&Hobeich to initiate legal proceedings against pedophiles living in Spain. The international cooperation is aimed at seeking out justice in cases of sexual abuse towards minors in which the suspected perpetrators are living in Spain. Nilsson&Hobeich take these cases pro bono and have already started working together with other organizations and foundations.

A Swedish organization helping kids who have been victims of sexual abuse has received information regarding users in an international network that distributes pornographic material. Through this network, photos and videos depict child molestations and sexual abuse towards children. The organization had found out that four of the network´s users were living in Spain and therefore they contacted our firm.

We got in contact with the public prosecution agency in order to start a preliminary investigation of the four suspects. This investigation showed that with three out of the four there were sufficient causes to prosecute. They have since handed the cases over to the district attorneys in order to start a prosecution.