Any one who cares to read this lengthy document (I have put a web link at the bottom of the page ) will be able to see clearly what SJ/HdT via SARC are really up to .They are trying to pre empt the creditors meeting due to take place in December  and influence the vote. (They need at least 50% of creditors to agree )

What is this allusive agreement referred to in the SARC report no one seems to want to answer that question .That is because it is the creditors agreement ie creditors agree to wait indefinitely for their money allowing the company to trade on thus letting SJ/HdT off the hook .No wonder they are prepared to pay our notary fees for this "privilege "All of  this will enable the company to trade on and will drag everything out  for years and years and will  leave SJ/HdT free to make there own decisions away from the jurisdiction of the court and the court administrators .This does not necessarily mean they will start or finish SADM or El Pinet . I wonder what they would do with out the restrictions of the court and Admin they will probably pay for the licences at Dolores as they clearly tried and want to do  and sell to another load of mugs just like us   .

Is this really what we want ? Are  the SARC report proposals really what is best for us  .I think not .Read on !

Web link after the news article is a lengthy document but worth a look .

http://www.imninc.com/iln/new_bankruptcy_act_spain.pdf

 SARC are way out of their depth this time .Be care full

HI LC

                  Nice document but

as we said no agreement means lost money I qoute from said document

"The liquidation stage will be initiated if no agreement is reached or in case of non-compliance by the debtor with the agreement." page 2 last sentance of your document

It is important to point out that the new Bankruptcy Act limits the content of the settlement of creditors, as it forbids settlements of creditors with a release of more than 50% of the amount of the credits and with waiting periods for more than five years, with some exceptional cases. Moreover, it forbids the settlement of credits for the purpose of winding up the company, which used to be very usual in the former suspension of payment proceeding.

7 LIMITS TO THE SETTLEMENT OF CREDITORS

But you have no money to lose. It has gone already.
If properties were to be built, they would be worth half what they were 2 years ago, so in reality, anyone who paid 50% deposit would have paid in full, so what bank (assuming funding needed), is going to lend more, unless it is linked into and influenced by the developer.

It is no good thinking that because you copy and paste a document repeatedly, that all will be OK.

No Mr Bank Manager, I am not a fool, but the developer tells me that although I am paying double, everything will be OK next year and my house will be worth much more. So it will be OK for yoy to lend me another 100.000€ The developer told me to tell you.
The legality, they say we don't need documentation as they will attend to everything

Of course, when funds are available and released at banks for property purchases, they will certainly grant loans for holiday homes before that for first time buyers, won't they? Won't they?

Hi All,

 I notice that our 2 nasty little posters are up to their usuall daft behaviour.

 Rather than slinging insults, false hoods and other crass remarks, that quite frankly are an insult to the purchasers of SADM, why not explain to us all what you wish to see as an outcome of the administration process? Do you want HdT to be liquidated & for us to loose everything and if so why?

 I am sure that we would all like to know what you hope to achieve & why it would be good for us.

 I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL DESPITE THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT US TO HAVE IT.

Hi Tony and Brian nice to see you are not denying it but why not just make what you are trying to do  perfectly clear in the SARC report .Why be so vague and try to confuse .Did SJ/HdT advice on how much you should actually  say . SJ are not to be trusted and them being allowed to trade on will not necessarily mean you will get any more back or your house .It is quite clear from their recent actions that they would rather  move on to Dolores .They have never been fair  or honest with anyone ,what makes you think they will change now .May be more chance of getting something back if they are wound up now before they pay out money for the licences at Dolores .

Now we all realise exactly what you are up to it is clear the report is a disgrace  designed to mislead .I would suggest you re write it in an open and honest way making clear exactly what you are asking purchasers to sign up to.Given SJ/HdT's passed record what should lead people to believe they will honour these new agreements anymore than they did our original contracts or BGs . They will just use us to get what they want then leave us high and dry .Tony and Brian you are way out of your depth now .Have you considered new independent legal advices from a barrister who is  not connected to SJ/HdT .

One good thing to come out of this is as SARC claim to be a body representing purchasers and advising on what purchasers should do and sign for. When it all goes sour for the purchasers, they will then have a representative body (SARC) which they may possibly be able to make claim against, as in mis-selling, whereby the company or partners could be held liable, therefore, the partners, organisers, committee or whatever could be held responsible. Much the same as several charities in UK, where, when things go wrong, there is a comeback on the Trustees, althought the Trustees are just volunteers.

Better to have 2 to take legal action against, especially as you will not have much luck against the developer, who will have 'ring fenced' themselves.

You see, good can come from bad.

Just bumping this back upo as it is very important that people know the bits that the SARC report mis out

Any one who cares to read this lengthy document (I have put a web link at the bottom of the page ) will be able to see clearly what SJ/HdT via SARC are really up to .They are trying to pre empt the creditors meeting due to take place in December  and influence the vote. (They need at least 50% of creditors to agree )

What is this allusive agreement referred to in the SARC report no one seems to want to answer that question .That is because it is the creditors agreement ie creditors agree to wait indefinitely for their money allowing the company to trade on thus letting SJ/HdT off the hook .No wonder they are prepared to pay our notary fees for this "privilege "All of  this will enable the company to trade on and will drag everything out  for years and years and will  leave SJ/HdT free to make there own decisions away from the jurisdiction of the court and the court administrators .This does not necessarily mean they will start or finish SADM or El Pinet . I wonder what they would do with out the restrictions of the court and Admin they will probably pay for the licences at Dolores as they clearly tried and want to do  and sell to another load of mugs just like us   .

Is this really what we want ? Are  the SARC report proposals really what is best for us  .I think not .Read on !

Web link after the news article is a lengthy document but worth a look .

http://www.imninc.com/iln/new_bankruptcy_act_spain.pdf

 SARC are way out of their depth this time .Be care full

Hi All,

SADM is nothing to do with SJ but HdT. It would be nice if rather than  throwing insults CL & FIN  actually tried to justify their position by given us a realistic alternative to get out of this mess. The only thing they can keep doing is to throw insults at SARC and any one who is trying to get us out of this mess. Why?

I do recall that CL in the form of JA & MM said she had a BG &  I wonder if that is still the case.

For one last time tell us what outcome you want for purchasers and hwo they are supposed to get it?

 I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

"It would be nice if rather than  throwing insults CL & FIN  actually tried to justify their position by given us a realistic alternative to get out of this mess."
What mess, you have recently through your report been telling us all is well and prior to which, didn't you make out that funders were lining up to help?

What has changed in the last couple of hours?

"The only thing they can keep doing is to throw insults at SARC"
 If honest opinions on what SARC presents is considered and insult, well

If you had listen some months, well many months ago instead of throwing insults, you would now be relaxing like some others.
Shame really, I believe you tried to make out you knew it all even pre-SARC days.

Hi ,

Still Fin posts drivell and does ont answer the question. Why not?

 I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

Think it was drivel the way you viewed the advice given a long time ago and look where it has got you.
Don't think, don't ask, don't consult a lawyer. Do listen to developer, do sign what they want, do give more cash.
Please come back and let us hear how you get on over the next 6 months.
 

PS. What happened to you pledge about not responding?
Such an honourable person and worth trusting?
Says one thing and does another.
Follow me to battle men, I am right behind you

Hi All,

SADM is nothing to do with SJ but HdT. It would be nice if rather than  throwing insults CL & FIN  actually tried to justify their position by given us a realistic alternative to get out of this mess. The only thing they can keep doing is to throw insults at SARC and any one who is trying to get us out of this mess. Why?

I do recall that CL in the form of JA & MM said she had a BG &  I wonder if that is still the case.

For one last time tell us what outcome you want for purchasers and hwo they are supposed to get it?

 I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR

But you have been telling us all is well, so what's the problem now. Didn't the developer tell you when you met all was OK?
The good news.

Tony if you care to look at the document that the council lodged with the court you will see quite clearly that both SJ and HdT are involved in SADM . You still have not answered one single question put to you by myself or Alan and Tracy or anyone else for that matter .Please have the courtesy to do so .Thank you ..

No, no, no. No good just looking, he has to read and understand, that's where the difficulty starts.