Hi All

Thought you may like to see this article out of Simply Networking

www.simplynetworking.es/news_further.php

Regards

Clive

Hi Cargic , Yes !   I have read this article many times now . It is a very sad ,one sided ,simplistic account of the true events and facts of the situation.

Sue's interpretation of the situation and the points of view she expresses on behalf of other purchasers is especially disturbing . The views expressed  do not reflect my experience's or the many different  routes  taken by many consumers to achieve justice and financial recompense from the crooks . 

The driving force behind these differences of opinion were based only on trying to help others to  see the bigger picture   and options , not malice or ill will just the hope that others could achieve justice like many of us have .

In my opinion Sue's views are quite ignorant  and show a lack of any  real knowledge or understanding of the situation or  the legal lengths and successes some purchasers have achieved despite the pathetic advice given by SARC et al  .HdT are not in charge hear ,You are !!!!!!

Purchasers were never at the mercy of this crooked unscrupulous company despite what Sue et al would now lead us to believe.  

It is however  too late now as  the minute purchasers see  themselves as  victims or creditors and not as innocent purchasers protected under Spanish consumer law , The game is over !!

You must  all now play HdT's stupid little game and take part in an even  bigger gamble  . HdT is now your mount ,your jockey and your bookmaker , God help you all !!!!!!       I do despair .

"  listen and thou shall receive knowledge babble and thou shall hear nothing  "  Good Luck JA

This message was last edited by julie anne on 03/05/2010.

This message was last edited by julie anne on 03/05/2010.

Come on then Tony where's the SARC slagging off of JA for telling the truth????????

Hi JA

Hope things are well with you, I know I said I would't post anymore, however SARC's comments and their almost desperate trying to convince people that the only way forward is to follow them in to more waiting without a BG for properties that in my opinion would never get finished, have forced me to give my views to those yet to make up their mind.

It never ceases to amaze me how many are just sitting back waiting to see what the outcopme may be. We know of a couple who have actually told us that San Jose have told them that everthing will be OK if they sign up to say YES, these are people who haven't even told their familys that the company is in administration. We also know of another couple who are sitting on a valid BG and are waiting to see what happens before cashing it in. Its a world full of mad` people and crooks.

Cheers

Dave

Hi JA and all

Unfortunately there are many people on here who - having paid their deposit to HdT without knowledge of the legal requirement to have a bank guarantee - cannot afford to lose even more money.  It is not a case of being victims, it´s not a case of failing to realise that we could take them to court, it is simply this: we do not have any money left to fight our corner! 

We are in Spain and not the UK and although María has said they now operate a no-win no-fee policy here, which is good news, she has said that you still need the funds to deposit with your lawyer.  María has posted details about consumer law, and she has posted about the precedent in La Coruña, however that is a different province.  She also stated: I am quite confident that  a good defence, out of Bankruptcy Act 62 and 84.6, and the recent Case Law will succeed.   How many innocent purchasers on here can afford to spend even more money on a case that may or may not succeed?  Many of us are now retired and however angry we may be, however keen we are to fight for our money back, we simply do not have enough money in our bank accounts to risk losing another 1000€ or whatever it may take. 

JA you dropped hints in the past, but whenever somebody has asked you for more details on how they can achieve success, there has never been a specific  answer on the forum that I am aware of.  If I missed it, perhaps you could post it on here now?  Believe me I would be happy to update the article if you could give me a blueprint for success that anybody who wants their money back could follow.  Maybe I am being "simplistic" in what I have written, but what would you advice those of us with limited funds to do?  

Sue 

Perhaps a joint action might be considered.

 I  very rarely come on here any more.

Thank you Sue for putting forward in simple language that which some on here are not able to understand.

Well said Linda and Sue,

                      I add to this post with a article from Costa blance news south,

I read it in the paper so it MUST be true!!!

Dear Sue,

Just for clarification, please be aware that the interpretation of the Mercantil Court of La Coruna to classify as preferential creditors the buyers of properties under construction, applies to those contracts that were still alive at the time of the declaration of insolvency, but not to those contracts that had already expired (which is the case in 99% of the cases in Herrada del Tollo / San Jose).

The Court considers that when the completion date was before the declaration of insolvency, then the credit is ordinary (it could have been resolved prior to the bankruptcy proceedings); on the other hand, if the completion date was after the declaration of insolvency, then the credit would be preferential.

Not that I agree to this personally, but this is the way it has been interpreted.

Regards to all.

Dear Abolex

Many thanks for your very helpful response.  I hope that everybody who has been talking about purchasers at HdT being able to get preferential status reads this and takes note!  It´s not necessarily good news, but it does make things very clear.

Regards.

Sue 

Martin/Abolex,

Maria states on the Lawyers Board, that this does apply to HdT/SJ under Articles 62 and 84.6 of the Bankruptcy Act. Would you care to comment on this difference of opinions. Cheers Joanniemac

Joan & Martin

I have just asked María on the other thread for clarification, as in her original reply she mentioned that other provinces "need to apply it", which I read as "other provinces should apply it but may not actually do so!"  I have specifically mentioned that the judge in Alicante, so far as I am aware, has already classified those of us without bank guarantees as ordinary creditors, and asked her if he is likely to change our status to preferential creditors if HdT go into liquidation.  The thread being referred to is: http://www.eyeonspain.com/forums/posts-long-8882.aspx.

Martin, if HdT fail to get the 51% vote and go into liquidation, would there be any point in those of us without bank guarantees forming a group and pressing the judge to reclassify us as preferential creditors?  Sorry if this sounds a naive question, but many of us have little knowledge of Spanish law, which is why we are in this situation to begin with!

Regards.

Sue

Dear Joanniemac and suemac

First of all, I have to explain that we can have different interpretations of the Law, and I have full respect and much interest on what other Lawyers are trying to achieve.

Having said this, articles 84.6 and 62 of the Bankruptcy Act have been already argued by us to the Court in Alicante and Cadiz, trying to have the credits of our clients classified as against the mass, and it was not accepted because:

- Article 84.6 refers to contracts that are alive, not those which completion date has already expired (which is the case for 99% of buyers in SADM).

- Article 62 refers to the faculty of the creditor to resolve the contract, specifying that if the contracts had been breached before the date of insolvency declaration by the insolvent company (May 2008 for Herrada / San Jose), then the credits will be ordinary; whilst if the contracts have been breached after this date, then the credits are against the mass.

Anyone interested can find the Bankruptcy Act (in Spanish) here: http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Privado/l22-2003.html

We also intervene in various insolvency proceedings in other Mercantile Courts and the same questions were made. So far, Courts apply the above interpretation and the preferential status for buyers of properties under construction at the time of the declaration of insolvency is reserved (if accepted by the Court) to those whose completion dates were after the declaration of insolvency, as it is understood then that the breach of contract by the developèr has happened after this declaration.

This is the Law, which doesn't necessarily mean I agree to it! In any case I am very interested in the opinion of other Lawyers, who I kindly ask to post in this thread their opinions about this issue.

Kind regards

Martin/Abolex,

Many thanks for your reply. Where do purchasers go from here, what options do we have to try and secure our deposits? Cheers Joanniemac

Dear joanniemac

We are about to see what happens with the proposal of Herrada del Tollo to either continue trading or being liquidated.

In my opinion, and this is the only thing I can recommend at the moment, we will have to wait and see the result of this.

Starting a litigation route which I consider of high risk and that can lead to big costs (losing a case often means having to pay the other side's fees) is not something I will recommend to our clients unless we are certain enough that it will lead to a good result.

Of course I may be wrong and this is why I would welcome other opinions of Lawyers involved, to share experiences on behalf of our clients.

Kind regards,

Martin,

My understanding is the judge has applied an extension as requested by few.

Taking this into consideration when can we expect to receive the results of the post - June, July or Sept ?

Dear rjmderry,

We should know the result a few weeks after the 1st of June (which is the new date extended).

I expect to know it by mid / end of June.

Kind regards,

To All,

Our lawyer tried this action  for us as our contract was still in force when San Jose went into voluntary liquidation.

We were refused by the judge & only given an ordinary credit

Regards

All existing contracts have already been breached by SJ, and even if there are any still current they will be in breach within the next year or so.  This doesn't apply, unless of course you have signed and agreed to the new proposal, then you are effectively tied in for another five years.

The article refers to existing and fullfilled contracts.