A fresh victory marks a renewed chapter in the dispute between the Mediterranean Foundation and Sabadell, echoing the historic controversy over the CAM participant quotas. Those quotas, which mirrored shares issued by the defunct Alicante savings bank in 2008, wiped out the life savings of around 50,000 investors. In 2017, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the CAM Welfare Projects successor bore responsibility only as the parent entity and that the financial institution that received the money must reimburse those who pursued legal action. Now, another ruling compels Sabadell to compensate the Foundation for sums paid in numerous cases.
In particular, Court of First Instance No. 11 assessed the claim brought by the Alicante-based institution led by Luis Boyer and ordered the bank to pay €1,438,847, plus interest on amounts owed to those affected, along with the legal costs incurred in their defense.
The decision comes amid a process where the court recognized a form of mirror action, dividing the CAM and Caja Mediterráneo organization from its successor, Banco CAM, as Sabadell later continued the operation. Legally, these quotas could only be issued by savings banks, and a clause required the new entity to respond to any repayment obligations arising from installments, even if their value remained on the Welfare Projects balance sheet as an internal matter.
The headquarters of the Mediterranean Foundation in Alicante stands as a reminder of this ongoing dispute. Information
The origin of the fresh clash lies in the plaintiffs filing a joint lawsuit against the Akdeniz Foundation and Sabadell to determine who bore responsibility for the quotas and thereby secure a refund. The aim was to establish whether the responsible party was the former or the current bank, with a strategy that led to multiple penalties and enforced joint and several liability for the demanded amounts.
However, after the Supreme Court ruled that the economic effects of the quotas—the capital contributed by investors—fell under unbundled financial affairs and that the Foundation’s responsibility as owner was limited to participation, the Foundation pursued refunds in July 2018. It had been submitting requests to Sabadell since 2013, but the bank consistently refused to fulfill them.
Judges began to dismiss CAM quota requests by arguing that the statutory deadline had passed.
Thus, the heir to the former CAM Social Work, under the guidance of legal director José Maria Ayala de la Torre and the legal services manager, Raphael, implemented what is known as a “replay action.” In essence, after assuming a foreign debt as guarantor, the Foundation sought repayment from the actual debtor based on the aforementioned mirror clause, contending that Sabadell should acquire Banco CAM in full.
This legal approach sought €1,053,956 in payments made to those affected by the quotas, plus court costs, culminating in €1.4 million. The amount was only the starting point, as the case, filed in 2018, saw the Akdeniz Foundation continue to seek further recovery and plans to claim more.
Sabadell maintained that the “mirror substance” referred to a financing arrangement intended to support Banco CAM and assist the Treasury. It argued that the Foundation should only bear ordinary depreciation of the quotas and not the total amount. The judge did not share this view, noting Sabadell’s 2013 refusal left the Institution to defend itself and it would have to bear the costs.
Ultimately, the decision fully supports Fundación Mediterráneo’s claim and obliges Sabadell to pay the 1.4 million demanded, plus statutory interest which could raise the total to about 1.8 million. Sabadell has indicated it will appeal the ruling.
The savings bank listing and the quota mechanism
Participation quotas resembled stock shares but did not carry voting rights. They were designed for savings banks to raise capital and, in some cases, be listed on the stock exchange. CAM alone used this mechanism, issuing a 50 million quota in July 2008 as the housing market and balance sheets began to falter. CAM ultimately seized 292 million in quotas, which were depreciated to zero after the institution’s intervention.
Within this context, the ongoing dispute continues to serve as a focal point for investor protection and the accountability of financial institutions involved in these quota schemes. The Madrid and Alicante courts’ decisions illustrate how complex these cases can be when ownership structures and guarantees blur the line of responsibility for past financial instruments.
Notes on the evolving legal landscape highlight that the interplay between guarantor liability, beneficiary rights, and the limits of institutional responsibility remains central to cases involving legacy savings entities and their successors. The parties involved are watching closely as higher courts refine the standards for repayment, the calculation of interest, and the proper allocation of costs in such complex financial claims.
Headquarters of Banco Sabadell in the center of Alicante. Hector Fuentes
The case underscores the tension between investor expectations and the formal legal reasoning that governs reconstructed groups and their obligations to those who trusted them with their savings. The outcome will shape how similar claims are addressed in the future and may influence how successors of failed savings banks manage legacy liabilities, especially when it comes to refunds and penalties for affected investors.