Confirmed: Buyers deposits for Herrada del Tollo, San Jose covered by generic guarantee policy

 I am really happy today, because I can confirm to buyers of "Herrada del Tollo SL", "San Jose Inversiones y Proyectos Urbanísticos", and "Inversol Grupo Urbanistico" that their deposits are covered by generic guarantees.

Guadalupe,

that sounds like great news. I have the exact same paperwork, but I have been previously advised by two Spanish lawyers that it goes to nothing and cant be used to force a repayment of the deposit sums paid to HDT.

As a lawyer are you now saying \ advising that this is not the case and the documentation can be used to force a repayment of the deposit sums direct from the Bank either directly or through the courts?

Please advise.

Thanks be to God for  the truth at last  .

I realised  all of  this a long time ago while dealing with SGR but was too confused and baffled  to post the facts I just posted hints .No one bit the cherry , but I did at least try and told many privately by PM  .

I new SGR  were paying me off  too quickly and were trying to hide something .They were  worried about the wider implications and keen that no one found out about these clauses . However anyone with a good lawyer  would have uncovered the existence of these policies .

 Any Good legal would have found all of this in research ,but we were all put off  for so long from  " wasting good money " on expensive  legal advice. Why ?

We were put off seeking proper legal advice by certain parties close to SJ/HdT perhaps now we can all see why ! 

I think SARC should now explain   !  ASAP

Rason,

Are you saying you have used this SGR global guarantee to get your deposit sum repaid? If so can you advise how please?

IN ORDER TO EXECUTE A BANK GUARANTEE YOU NEED AN INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONALISED DOCUMENT

OF THE BANK GUARANTEE. A GENERAL OR GENERIC GUARANTEE CANNOT BE EXECUTED.

TAXIPARROTS

Are you a legal adviser taxiparrots?

Can you let us know how you can make this statement, and what evidence you have to support it please?

As I see it a lawyer has made a statement on here that it IS possible to make generic bank guarantees payable.  Then you say it isnt.

Are we in the midst of someone trying to rip us off, or are you making statements that are just 'off the cuff'

I CAN TELL YOU BRIANDO55  THAT THE STATEMENT I MADE ALSO CAME FROM A  LAWYER.

THIS LAWYER  JUST HAPPENED TO EXECUTE MY OWN PERSONAL SGR BANK GUARANTEE SO YES SHE DOES KNOW WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT..

CAN YOUR LAWYER PRODUCE A SINGLE CASE WHERE A GENERIC BANK GUARANTEE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN COURT?   NO I DON'T THINK SO.

THE PARROT

Brian,

I have also sent my documentation to Maria (at her request) for another legal opinion on the SGR generic global guarantee in light on Guadalupe's statements. If another independent lawyer gives a similar opinion it would add a lot of weight to Guadalupe's assertions.

Brian,

Jeff T has just redirected me to back to the Spanish developers forum and Maria's post from 28/03/11 >>>>>>

Re- Quoted below : -

Yes, the existence of the Guarantees make the claim completely independent to the unsolvent status of the company and if there was no Bank Guarantee in place, as very rightly my colleague Guadalupe has just posted, there are liabilitied against the Banks which received the deposits out of provision 1.2 of Law 57/68

Good that more lawyers are using 1.2 of Law 57/68

PLease keep us posted on your results Guadalupe!

Maria.

Again hope this helps. I just hope this all comes to something.

I have also sent the information to Martin...........resisting to feel optomistic at this moment in time !

Kay

I have now heard back from Guadalupe @ GM Legal and she has asked me to post the following note on the forum as she is having trouble with her EOS account.

The news is very positive and GM Leagal are now commencing a Class action for all interested parties. I have also had a second opinion from Maria De Castro who has advised of a similar view.

Obviously taking furtther legal action is very much up to you guys as individuals to consider , but for us this is the best positive news we have had in two years, & for people without specific Bank guarantees I personally think its got to be worth a try.

Guadalupes email  below : >>>>>>>>>

About the low cast class action grounds:

 A generic bank guarantee is an agreement signed between the Bank and the Developer, in which the Bank agrees to deliver bank guarantees for the deposits paid to the builder, and the developer accepts to refund the Bank the amounts covered by the guarantees if he breaches the contracts. The generic guarantee can specify which development (or phases of a development)are covered, or even settle a limit for the amount of deposits covered. So basically is a document where the Bank commits to give a bank guarantee for every deposit paid to the developer by buyers. This means that no individual guarantees are given unless a generic guarantees has been previously signed between the builder and the Bank.

 It seems that the generic guarantees signed between DHT and SGR doesn’t include any reference about which developments are covered, the guarantee is extended to any deposit pay for any resort. You have to bear in mind that SGR provided guarantees for several buyers of HDT in Santa Ana, whose contracts were exactly like yours and paid to the same BBVA account, under the provisions of the generic guarantee. So there is one thing we can assure: the generic guarantee covers the resort Santa Ana del Monte, because individual guarantees wouldn’t have been given to buyers otherwise.

 The generic guarantee made by SGR settles a maximum amount limit, 65 millions of euros, and when they get opposite to my claim they will probably allege that the maximum amount has already been reached, so they are no longer liable. My opinion is that the “amount limit” is against the provision of the 57/68 Act. SGR is a financial entity, but they just provide financing and not banking services (accounts, etc). So the fact that the deposits were not credited in a SGR’s account is not relevant, because SGR does not provide banking services. Therefore, SGR and DHT did not follow any criteria to decide which deposits paid for Santa Ana were guaranteed, and which weren’t. It was just an arbitrary decision. Consequently, SGR’s liability could be claimed,  as long as the art. 1^st of the 57/68 Act states that bank guarantees must be delivered to every buyer of an off plan development and the bank must control if guarantees are given to buyers, and the art. 7^th states that the rights established by the law can’t be waived. If their excuse is that the deposits were not paid to them because they don’t provide banking services, they should have established additional control systems to make sure that every buyer  got an individual guarantee.

 Before bring a civil action against SGR, I will file a preliminary enquiry, to request them a copy of the generic guarantee (general and particular conditions) and to make sure that any if my clients is the holder of an individual bank guarantee which wasn’t given to him (please note that Banks are forced by the law the keep copies of every individual bank guarantee given). As explained on my post, what we have now is a certificate signed by SGR, and also an email from HDT which confirms that the generic guarantee is not for an specific development or phase. Even we will probably find that on the particular conditions of the generic guarantee is established that SGR will provide guarantees for the deposits paid on the BBVA account  hold by HDT mentioned on the purchase contracts.

 As many buyers seems to be interested, we can bring a class action. To make everybody possible to join this action, the provisions of funds requested by GM will be just € 700 (instead of the standard €1,500).

Please let me know whether you are interested on joining the action.

End.

For those interested her contact email is : guadalupe@gmlegalexperts.com and web address is www.gmlegalexperts.com .  

Hello Nick

I had the same request from Guadalupe and was prepared to post it myself, but you have beat me to it, thanks.

I am wondering why this lawyer was suddenly taken from the forum, when we were at last receiving important information concerning this action.  Maria had posted good wishes and seemed to be backing the facts that this lawyer was presenting to us.

I am considering taking the lawyer up on the offer, subject to the result of her preliminary enquiry with SGR, but still keeping my powder dry at this stage.  I have asked my own lawyer for comments, I am not that happy my previous questions about bank guarantees being illegaly ignored were dismissed fairly easily.

Keep in touch everyone, sounds fairly promising at this stage.

Brian, the reason that she was blocked was because she was actually defying the forum rules quite blatantly.  We sent her a private message and told her that she couldn't use the forum simply to tout for business and she continued to ignore us.  Not a single response to our request.

We felt this was a very unprofessional attitude from a lawyer and all she could do was have a go at us in public on the forum instead of responding to our private messages.

Everyone can provide information but not actively encourage people to contact them, especially where the motive is to get members to hand over money.  Most people respect those rules and there is no reason why we should make an allowance for Guadalupe.

We don't know anything at all about this lawyer and having witnessed many people ripped off via the forums over the years we do apply the "no commercial posts" aspect of the rules very strongly.

We have sent Guadalupe another email and if she agrees to abide by the rules we will enable her account again, but going from past experience I can't see her replying.

As you know we intervene very little in the forums, sometimes too little for some people, but we expect everyone to respect the rules....especially lawyers who should know better.

Justin

 First of all, I would like to thank Justin for enable my account again. He was totally right.

My private message facility is working again, so I will get back to all the queries as soon as possible.

Regards,

 First of all, I would like to thank Justin for enable my account again. He was totally right.

My private message facility is working again, so I will get back to all the queries as soon as possible.

Regards,

Guadalupe

I have emailed you my intentions with joining your Class action against ASGR, but for the benifit of the forum please see below some questions for you to answer please (as per my earlier email).

1. Can you confirm what legal processes have been undertaken to date against the ASGR Bank by GM Legal?

2. How many people \ contracts GM Legal are representing to date in this class action?

3. Can you give an estimate of timescales invloved in this recovery action against the bank to bring this matter before the courts?

4. Can you outline the legal processes invloved and advise an approximate timescale on each?

5. Can you advise if you require any other documentation apart from the deposit contracts, the ASGR genric guarntee document, concurso registration and details of the payments made to Herrada Del Tollo?

6. Do you require power of attorney to represent people in this matter?

7. Can you advise of the likley total GM legal fee and its apportionment between members of the class action?

8. Can you provide details of other succesful legal cases GM Legal have fought of a similar nature against the banks to recover deposit funds agianst a global guarantee?
 
These are imprtant questions for you to answer to give confidence to your assertions of  - excellent chances of recovery against the ASGR Bank.

Regards

Reply working??