Andorra Court Upholds BPA Bankruptcy Liquidation, Rejects Client Appeals on Blocked Accounts

The Superior Court of Andorra has again upheld the bankruptcy liquidation of Banca Privada d’Andorra (BPA), dismissing a client appeal over blocked accounts in a 30 January 2026 ruling.

The administrative chamber confirmed the Batlles Court's earlier position, ruling that the State Agency for the Resolution of Banking Entities (AREB) acted lawfully. It rejected arguments that the process violated core rights including the presumption of innocence, property ownership, and equality before the law. Clients and foundations had contested their accounts' "non-transferable" status, which prevented funds from moving to Vall Banc. They claimed ongoing criminal probes should have paused the administrative action, but the court disagreed, stressing that resolution proceedings are not punitive in nature.

The judges clarified that AREB bears no burden to establish illicit fund origins; account holders must instead prove legitimacy to secure transfers, in line with Andorra's global anti-money laundering obligations. The decision separates criminal from administrative tracks, noting judicial investigations do not halt liquidation. Clients received sufficient time to provide documentation before accounts were finalized as non-transferable.

On property rights, the court held they are not unlimited and may yield to public interest under Law 8/2015 and Andorra's international financial pledges. Discrimination claims failed too: transfers occurred only for those meeting proof thresholds, based on objective standards.

This outcome solidifies jurisprudence supporting AREB's BPA resolution.

In a related BPA case, the Batlles Court's civil section recently dismissed a French client's 2016 lawsuit seeking over €600,000 initially, later narrowed to €20,118 for zeroed-out preferred shares and €5,000 for moral damages and lost opportunities. The client alleged inadequate disclosure on share risks, investor status as a retail buyer, and vitiated consent rendering the subscription contract void. He also blamed executives and board members for fraud, money laundering facilitation, and diligence failures after reversed transactions due to INAF and AREB orders.

The court applied force majeure, citing the 2015 FinCEN note, INAF's 11 March intervention, and subsequent public authority measures as events beyond BPA or its leaders' control. These severed contractual liability for unexecuted orders and asset access, as well as any extracontractual claims against management. The AREB's 21 April 2016 zero-amortization decision, upheld by the Superior Court on 26 September 2019, further insulated parties. Moral damages claims were rejected on the same grounds. The client must cover court costs.