El blog de Maria

antifreeze said:
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 @ 2:52 PM

Hi Maria

Is the fight with the banks now to get money refunds under the BGs that should have been in place?

What if they were not given to buyers - are the banks still liable?

mariadecastro said:
Tuesday, November 4, 2014 @ 4:51 PM

Yes, it is against either General Guarantoors ( there were many General Guarantees issued in Aifos developments, despite clients never received their individual titles of Guarantee) OR the Bank which received deposits.

ILostMySensaHuma said:
Wednesday, November 5, 2014 @ 9:20 PM

Hi Maria
I don't understand.
The article implies that now that the bankruptcy is out of the way, you can go ahead and pursue a claim against the banks.
I thought you could take action against the bank at the same time as any bankruptcy hearings?

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, November 6, 2014 @ 8:04 AM

Thanks for the input ILostMySensaHuma.

I am correcting the post a bit. Of course law 57/68 actions are possible meanwhile creditor´s meeting is developing.

When a company, like Aifos, goes to liquidation after a creditor´s meeting process, the advantage for Law 57/68 claimants is that contracts are then considered cancelled. Also, as they are not getting any refund out of the Creditor´s meeting process, Judge is always more inclined to a full and correct interpretation of Law 57/68 to their protection.

Again, that does not mean that Law 57/68 actions cannot be performed while Credito´s meeting is active. Protection of this special law is beyond, superior, more special, precise... for Law 57/68 claimants.