I want my house

That's a good point.  We were always told they had about €320 million in assets and €79 million in debts.  If you deduct about 50% of the asset value as this will be land and property, it still leaves them with enough to cover all their debts.  Of course they still have to sell them.  At least if the administrators sell them it will be to pay of the creditors.  If SJ sell them then God only knows.

The debt to Ordinary Creditors is about €35 million, but they only intend on giving back €23 million, I guess this is the 65%

In 2012 they plan to sell land at Calasparra for €7.5 million to pay back privileged creditors (the banks and administration).  And in 2014 sell 15% of land at Abanilla, for €2.3 million.

But these are just predictions, who they will sell them to remains to be seen, and will all this money after they've paid the banks go into a pot for us or them who knows??

All I know is that if they are liquidated all the money will go into a pot for the creditors and of course the administration costs.  But when I get told time and again by various legal bodies to liquidate them I understand why.

Sue

This is in no way a dig and at anyone on this forum but i feel an hyperthetical explanation is necessary

If SJ/HdT is liquidated, people who want their houses won´t get them and will lose every penny.  If the company is liquidated, people who want their deposit back MAYget 100% of their money back

I hope you dont mind but i have doctored the excert from you earlier post to read a little more like it ought to.BUT  I would like to explain the dictionary defination of Liquidation

Liquidation is "the process of clearing up financial affairs "of companies who cant trade on, due to poor financial management previously.  The liquidator in this case the Administrators would then be able to sell off the assets to the highest bidder, it would be the creditors would then get paid as much money as possible, so if they only sell them off at a 1/3 thier worth, hopefully all creditors would get 100% AND SJ would get a big fat NOWT

Sorry  everyone but I am with Linda on this one . I have put my brain into gear on all levels and keep coming up with the same answers .It is better for you all now than later when there will be nothing left .It is really hard for me to comment now  as it makes no difference  for me . but i would like to see the best possible outcome for all of you .JA

I rest my case, thank you laferia, and for the detailed information..

If you're looking to where the money went, look no further than the parent company.

Finally, one very important point that we need to ask our lawyers.  And that is to ensure that San Jose are tied in with Herrada del Tollo, it's been a long haul and I can't remember if this is so.  This is crucial as it is with San Jose that the assets lie.

Similar ongoings at Trampolin Hills debacle where the creditors had to go to court to state that the subsidary company was indeed tied to the group owner (they indeed won this case).  This needs to be the same in our case.  If anyone can confirm that this is so in our case then that would be good.

Regards,

I am still reading, digesting and checking the content of your post  (it is a very good attempt at deciphering this almighty mess   ) may  I just comment quickly for now  until I have time to fully digest and analyse ,,,,, I  feel there is a  fundamental missing link regards the missing  funds and what has been the true journey of these two ? companies ?l To all intents  and purposes they are the same  company  !!!!!!

Who are  the share holders of HdT  /  as  listed in the agreement  it is SJ therefore it is  not possible to look at either of these two companies in isolation as the original judge in the procedure ruled .  SJ and HdT are one in the same  .We must  look closely at the figures for both companies to see the reality of what has gone on  ! and it is not good !!!!!!!

Ps

A joint action against SJ was the way to go it is  they who have purchasers  money !!!!!!   Do you remember when SARC used to go ape shit at me for posting HdT/SJ or SJ/HdT  I always refused to seperate them because in truth you can not !!!!!!  SJ are the shareholders and own HdT the deposits went to SJ  Look no further !!!!!! Cheers JA

Redman make no mistake they are intrinsically linked ,can not be separated ,   which if handled correctly could be good news .I am not surprised that you are now questioning what is what as  ,,,,,, SARC have confused everyone  but this is fact copied from the agreement document ,,,, if you need to see  anymore let me know .

I have been over both the Spanish and English version with a fine tooth comb (and the first version ) .ps the original was slightly changed after Tony told Almu purchasers were not happy with the payment arrangements in the first document  ie  if they continue ther is a money up front clause , it was therefore  omitted  to make the document more palatable  to purchasers .The clause still stands but is no longer prominent in the  wording of the offer  ,  most notaries  & legals will miss it   .ie  there is a  quite substantial up front payments for properties due well before completion  ie you will once again be funding  HdT with no guarantee  !!!!!!

" Its shareholders are the Company SAN JOSE INVERSIONES Y PROYECTOS URBANÍSTICOS SA, and the Company INVERSOL

Can anyone confirm if the assets being shown in the report actually exist and are owned by HdT.

i remember a while back being told that the land in calasparra had been bought back by the local town hall for there own use, i am having this checked out. What about all of the other assets being shown in the report, how can i find out if they are owned.

Hi Dave,

HdT sold a small section of land the land at Calaspara to the local town hall, it is mentioned in an earlier SARC update. As for the listed assets, the administrators and court would of checked to ensure that they are HdT's and listed correctly.

As for JA's daft remarks about the settlement agreement, no one could change it expect HdT, the Administrators and the court and they would all have to be in agreement. As for who owns what is HdT it is of no relevence to us purchasers, what is of relevence is that we have an opportunity to save our money/property.

I truly believe that it is time that those of you with BG's and those who have even stated that they have had their money back, desisit from trying to get HdT liquidated . It is those of us without BG'd who stand to loose out and not yourselves and to be quite frank, I find that kind of behaviour deplorable.

I am accepting the agreement.

 I WANT A POSTIVE OUTCOMRE FOR ALL

Tony R17 18

Tony et al,

I don't have a BG, I have studied all the evidence and the proposal and I want them liquidated.  You nor SJ/HDT have offered any evidence to that would encourage me to think differently. 

Dave R, It would be interesting to know what land is left at Calasparra as they hope to raise 7.5 million euros from the sale of this land to pay preferential creditors according to the proposal.

 In answer to Dave R ."Can anyone confirm if the assets being shown in the report actually exist and are owned by HdT."

Who knows Dave they have had so much time now to juggle their  assets it is anyone's guess as to what the true situation is now .I am damned if I can follow where things went or where they  are now !

If things were ok and future proofed they would not be able to continue without issuing BGs for all deposits and future payments .If they can not do this they should be liquidated as any other option is illegal and an abuse of purchasers legal rights . "simples " 

Good luck all but remember the law is the law is the law .Why should HdT/SJ be able to flaunt it . No BGs vote NO   simple !!!!

Agree with redman.

We also do not have a guarantee but want them liquidated.

If there were no assets they would already be in liquidation & would be thumbing their nose at us.

They are so keen to stay in business they must stand to lose all their assets & do not want to end up with nothing.

Without a bank guarantee you must vote NO

The agent i was using called today and they seem to think that the vote will almost definatly go the way of SJ/HDT because of the amount of secured creditors who want it to go ahead . I proberly won't vote because i have been told the solicitor wants paying to register the vote.

Why oh why !!!!!!  are you still dealing with your agent !!!!  Your agent is working for HdT /SJ ???????  Not you!!!!!!!

.Please don't  tell me you are still with the same  lawyer your "Agent " introduced you to  .No wonder you are getting no where !!!!!! JA

Hi All,

Firstly stating that an agent is working for HdT has no factual basis and is a suposition.

Secondly I have heard that the Spanish are signing up to the agreement and I will be trying to get an indication of how it is going later on next week.

 SAVE YOUR MONEY, SAVE YOUR HOUSE, SAVE SADM

Tony R17 18

Have you read your own post ?

You start by critisising someone for posting a suposition then post one of your own !

You really take some believing.

PS

Who pays the agents ?

I think you will find it is the developers ie HDT.

So it is a fair assumption to claim they are working for the people who pay them.

I've heard, the Spanish are planning a march against San Jose in Madrid.  These are workers owed money, shareholders, purchasers.  Helps if you can read spanish and follow their forums, it's not just us getting angry.

Look, the simple facts are this:-  for every person voting yes to the proposal and wants their money back is one less purchaser who is essential for SJ to meet their proposal target, add to this those voting NO, means that the chances of reaching their proposal targets becomes less and less and therefore a self fulfilling failure.

I would sooner take my chances with someone else at the helm than the already established liars and cheats.

I agree the Banks will have a large say in all of this, but either way, it is the banks who will be hit when people start to push the law 57/68.    The Banks will need to choose which is the best route for them, and in this you may find a clue as to the reality of the situation as surely they will pick the most lucrative path.

looks like a lot of people are burring their heads in the sand and hoping for a good outcome.  We would all like to get our money back or even a proportion now.

read through these posts and listen to what people are saying.  SJ are taking us for a ride and the longer the ride the smaller the pot becomes.

I was told by my solicitor that my BG was canceled by SJ and it is against the law.  They are not in prison yet.

I payed my deposit on their promise to provide my property in 2 years, or my money back (in the legal contract) time has expired by 10 months.  I do not have my property or my deposit back.

They now want more money and time to build the property at the same price although property prices everywere has fallen.  The Qeen Marry complex we signed on for in the begining may well turn out to be a row boat, with all the votes for yes doing the rowing.  Why not pay 50k for a luxury extention and only settle for a tent been put up.

It has been nearly 3 years now NO one has ever contacted me apart from agents wanting me to switch deposit, the answer is always no.  If i wanted a house in Richmond why would I pay the same for a house in Brixton, South Norwood Or Croydon.

How are they working this vote?  My vote is LIQIDATE but no one has asked me.  Nothing from the company or solicitors, no info  or letter at all apart from what i read on this forum.  No letter, no choices will they mark my vote to keep going (probably)

Will e-mail my solicitor on monday with a NO vote although I told her months ago.  She may reply befor Christmas.

I hope we all get what we want but I think unless we all vote to liqidate(who do I have to write to to register my vote) we will probably get nothing back.