Colds and Stuff?

Hi all, I start this thread in order to provide some information about some comments I have read around about some funds held at the bank to support the deposits provided by the clients. It is true that Law 57/1968 says that the developer must nopt only provide a bank guarantee to cover all deposits plus 6% interest, but also that these funds must go into an account, which can only be used for payments relating to that construction (i.e. the funds can only be used to pay for the building of the house). 99% of you have not got a bank guarantee that surely would have made your life easier. Even those with bank guarantees are finding problems to recover their funds, but at least they do have a very good chance as, by Law, the guarantor must cover the bank guarantee once it is proven construction was not completed in time. Not once in my experience have I seen one developer / builder that has set up this account, so I cannot expect the funds to be secure as some of you are saying. One thing is to be positive, and one another to bring false expectations. If someone can proove the funds are secure, please bring the information here. Kind regards & good luck to all.

Hola todos,
When this debacle broke we were informed that San Jose had assets of 235,000,000 / 300,000,000 but were unable to meet a 30,000,000 requirement for licences, and that cash in hand was 7,000,000. Where is the 70,000,000 euro of depositors money that that some believe is in a secure Bank Escrow Account ?. Can anyone through any light on this  ?. 
Saludos.

Hi,
I may be wrong but if our deposits are in a speciall account I am sure that they could not be declared as a SJ/HRD asset as the money is not theirs, its ours.
I will ask my solicitor tomorrow and check up on this.
All the best
Tony 

hi laganside     "  Can anyone through any light on this  ?." Yes the Administraters and they aint saying anything yet. I dont think the admin would be able to leak any of this stuff with the judge overseeing everything.The initial stuff about assests debt and cash flow was put out by SJ so we can take that with a large pinch of salt and the rest I think is hearsay and rumour.We will just have to wait and see.What the administraters report and the judge finally decides  this will be in the public domain There is no point in speculating I think the truth is no one really knows yet where things have gone except the presidente and he wont be talking now either.

Hi,
Why not ask Anna M she says her solicitor told her so lets go back to her plus ask our own solicitors rather than speculate.

All the best

TONY

Hi all,

It's true that there are Spanish laws stating that the monies paid in deposit off-plan have to be kept in a special account not to get mixed with other resources and just able to be dispose for paying the works in the sold units.

As you know, Santa Ana has not been started. So, the monety should be there.

We are into the proccess representing many buyers and know it quite deeply, and have asked the account to be blocked.

Fortunately, we can say that the account where the deposits were sent (special account), is nearly untouched.

Now the point is that your solicitors fight for that money not to be used for any other payment different from returning deposits.

It's time for all of us work together.

Best regards.

With all due respect Santa Ana Del Monte residential has been started.

Which Bank holds the deposits?

Regards,

Steve.

Technically and within the eye of the law, when does work start on the development, if the roadways, show houses and foundations with build up to ground level doesn't.

Dear Lucas
what if funding is arranged from a lets  say syndicate of banks to complete the SADM project and I employed you would you still want to fight to get the money back and how long would that take or my house which would be  fininshed in lets say 18 months 

Under spanish law Can the money (our deposits) be used for construction purposes if it is auditable 

Where would I stand in the list of creditors 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in line for the money if I dont have BG and what is your cut from the process

lastly if the project went ahead
These are just a couple of questions that you should be able to answer easily
brianmags

Here is a guess for you..............

The people on sadm who have houses started can be preferential creditors...the account has still got deposit money in so it looks like pay-outs can be made.  This is complicated though because, houses are started and some almost completed, so how can you sort out who gets what.....as Brian said.

Albatera (san jose part of the group) has no houses started, or infrastructure, therefore no preferential credit.  BUT if the deposits are in a 'safe' account...we are laughing.  I bet you they are not.

My prediction is.........Albatera has no safe account and the money in Herrand's sadm account has been coming and going but is showing healthy.

I have been saying for a long time.......the deposit money is used for development.......one way or another.

Be carefull people

I was falling into a trap again there.....

Lucas.....how do you know this account is untouched....where did that information come from and how can it be proved?

Briando55:

I'm a solicitor, and I've appeared in the Public Intervention before the Court.

Specially, about the special account, we've required the Court to block it, and the Judge asked the bank to say what disposals have been made in the account, and that's the answer from the bank. They've disposed circa 39.000 €.

Best regards.

LucasAsociados, can you tell me, technically and within the eye of the law, when does work start on the development, if the roadways, show houses and foundations with build up to ground level doesn't.

Dear Lucas associates,
             why have you decided not to anwser my three simple questions maybe you will answer these two

1  Under spanish law Can the money (our deposits) be used for construction purposes if it is auditable 


2 Where would I stand in the list of creditors 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in line for the money if I dont have BG and what is your cut from the process

Dear Brian.
Why have you decided not to answer my one simple question which i asked on several occasions in various forms.

You stated our deposit moneys were safe and i am still waiting for your reply to inform me where you got this information.

Annoying isn't it when people do not reply to a simple question.
Ken.

Dear Brianmags,

The questions may be simple but the answers are probably much more complex, as to Spanish Law  well where do we start.
Let's start  with the famous bank guarantees that the law says we should have to protect us from unscruplous developers but who broke  this law with impunity who made us promises in our legal contracts only for us to find that it was only words the promises are worthless and mean nothing. But it looks good in the glossy sales brochures.


Even those lucky enough to have bank guarantees look how the banks have treated them, we know what Spanish Law says should happen, but from some of the postings it appears that again the letter of Spanish Law is very different from the spirit.     

The Spanish Laws that are in place to protect us are in fact used by the developers, agents, and banks who know how lengthy and expensive it is to take a civil case to court so for them it's a win win situation.

As to the solicitor's cut from the pot well if he get's me my money back it will be money well spent and, at least I know up front what fees I am going to be paying for both a win and a lose situation.

We now have to  wait and see how Spanish Law is going to treat the funds in the special account and let us not forget that it is San Jose who have made it necessary for us to have to employ solicitors.

 Senor Lucas and his associates have been upfront to us their client and  have made us no false promises unlike San Jose who fed us nothing but false promises not once but several times both verbally and in writing.



Arlene
R4 parcela 564

I guess I will answer this one myself 

 I believe that the answer is very clear and in this extract of new law it says we who have no bank guarantees become ordinary creditors that is 4 th in line for payment
 

• The classification of debts in order of priority, as follows:
  • First, first priority debts (créditos contra la masa), such as salaries and judicial expenses relating to the insolvency procedure (which do not affect assets secured by specially privileged debts);
  • Second, debts secured by real estate, moveable mortgage or pledge ('specially privileged debts');
  • Third, privileged debts, including taxes and social security contributions up to a maximum of 50% of their value;
  • Fourth, ordinary debts; and
  • Fifth, subordinated debts.

 

• The subordination of debts due to creditors connected to the insolvent company, such as directors and shareholders owning 5% or more of a listed company or 10% or more of an unlisted company.
• A moratorium on enforcement against secured assets. Unless an auction of those assets has already been announced, enforcement will be suspended until the earlier of (i) the conclusion of a creditors' agreement and (ii) the elapse of one year from the declaration of insolvency.
• The unwinding of dispositions carried out by the insolvent company to its detriment within two years of the declaration of insolvency. There is a presumption of detriment in certain circumstances including a disposition made in favour of a connected creditor.

So you see we are way down the list unless they get the funding to continue the project which means we all get our houses the we have to go cap in hand for our money back those with BG might be OK not to sure there if the bank honours them but banks are second in line for payments then the government then us and first is the workers salaries and courts fees.
So being fourth in line doesn’t seem that good to me I would still rather have my house we need each other and that is a fact the more people that say we want our house the bigger the pressure for the Banks and Administrators to come to a deal as if we let the company go to the wall we will be the losers not the SOLICITORS, BANKS or  COURTS

Brianmags

R4 556

Link to article

http://www.herbertsmith.com/NR/rdonlyres/F85CFB58-6227-4290-BA0E-1BB2AA87FF55/140/Europeancorporaterecoveryebulletin15September2004.htm

Dear Brianmags,

Thank you for your reply however at present ( though the law may say different) I do not see myself as a creditor but as a would be purchaser who's deposit money is sitting in a special bank account waiting for a court judge to decide should it be returned to me or is it to be added to the general pot and shared out to preferential creditor,s ie the banks etc.

In my reasoning I am not fourth or fifth in line but at the very top and I am praying that the judge agrees, while I accept the  wishes and views of those that wish to proceed with their house purchase I do not want it to be at the expense of me not getting what I want which is whatever my solicitor tells me that I have the most chance of getting.    

Again I state that I mean no disrespect to any that attended yesterday's meeting but can only question as to why no word of these meetings was mentioned before the event? perhaps those that want their money back have not been vocal enough so no one thought to inform us.


Regards

Arlene


 

Arlene

My view is that if the administration decides the build goes ahead, the builder still has the problem of paying back the deposits to those who want them back....out of contract.

If they go into liquidation the build also goes into liquidation, along with the deposits.  The only time a preferential creditor is made is when the firm goes into liquidation.

We are all in the same boat, dosnt matter if its build or not build.......mine is straightforward on Albatera, there is nothing built.

Watch how messy that one is even without the builds or not.

Brian

But Brian follow the logic. san jose have not registered us as creditors because they are kind people. they have registered us because, if they are able to be sustained, part of the courts role is to legally protect san jose from those creditors for a period of time (usually around three years)