Maria del Castro / solicitors not against the agreement

Dear All,

I would like to thank Maria for sendin me the email below & agreeing for me to share it with you all. I hope that you can see that she has no problem with purchasers accepting the agreement and that it does not disadvantage legal action. I have also posted the appendix from the SARC report ,to highlight that solicitors are not against the agreement & are concerned about the impact of liquidation upon their clients.  I strongly urge you to protect your money by thinking long & hard about the risk of losing it and if you can attend a HdT meeting this weekend.

All the best

Tony

Dear Tony:

Thanks for your email.

We have no objections of people voting yes to the agreement as our planned actions against finantial institutions are not prejudiced by our clients signing the agreement. We are communicating this to San José, Herrada del Tollo and our own clients. There is no precedent for this type of action but in our opinion, and the opinion of a high top Law Proffessor ( Catedrático de Civil de la Universidad de Sevilla) is fully grounded and based in Law.

We will probably be asking a provision of funds of less than 1000 € to everyone joining the action. Our current clients have the action included in the legal package that we offer for the initial provision of funds of 5% of money claimed back.

I would say that the action is both possible and probable and costs are very reasonable. The fact that we are specialised in this type of actions make us available for low costs.

Best regards,

Maria
 

This message was last edited by TonyMal on 18/05/2010.

Tony,

Firstly, you are suggesting that Maria is saying it does not disadvantage legal action, but what you fail to mention is that Maria is talking about her action against the Banks under law 57/68, and not against the developer.

You deliberatly fail to mention the words San Jose and Herrada del Tollo.  Voting yes and signing will remove your ability to both resolve your contract and take legal action against San Jose for at least four/five years.  You are effectively absolving them from any wrong doing.

The second solicitors response are statements of facts, they cannot decide on an action until a decision has been made, and it is common sense that any course of action involves a risk, but the aim is always to reduce the risks, a bit like when you buy a property and take out a mortgage.

The third solicitor say's it is not possible to gain 65%, I would agree had they said 'not likely', but to say not possible is a clear sign they don't know what they're talking about.

I have always looked at all sides of the argument, and no matter which path I choose, logic always tells me the same.

Also, why are we always talking about number of votes, and getting closer, you should be talking about amounts.  CAM bank are owed 9 million, their single vote would have more sway than 80 ordinary creditors.

Finally, if the proposal is getting close, this suggests that the agreement is only just reaching 51% of the creditors, and out of these 51%, lets say 50% want their money back, this leaves a shortfall of 75% of purchasers necessary to raise the money to pay everyone back. 

Doomed to failure no matter which way you look at it....

Roll on June the 1st.... or when the judge gets back from his summer vacation sometime in September....  cynical I may be but I'm not laughing any more.

Tony  this post alone shows you are a fool ,off your head and for some reason unknown to the rest of us securely in the pocket of SJ .Why ? we may never know .What have they promised you ??????  ( I will no longer patronise you by saying HdT /SJ  ( I only ever did this to appease your ignorance ) this is all about SJ make no mistake !!!!!!!!! .SJ SJ SJ they are not skint and have most of the HdT deposit money .What part of this do you not understand .The intention all along was to off load HdT and leave the rest of the group intact . I have said this for years.

The stupid little vote as Maria says makes no difference to the legal position of the smart people .You have been hood winked by Almu Tony and hell mend you .Your stupid little vote means nothing the banks will call on this one as their stake rises as more and more have claims in court .You are an Idiot and always will be  .Long live FIN  he was right from the beginning .You should have listened !!!!!!!!   God help you and anyone who still believes in these wrong doers !!!!!!!!