SARCO

To hell wi't Dudley talk..................In a real broad Yorkshire accent

and as a farewell from the famous Nora Batty...................(alias Kathy Staff who lived down the road from me for years)...............

gerratoffit yer silly beggars..........have yer no sense.............if yer cant translate it, leave it alone to't people who know what they are on abart.

If tha still wants thee house...................thal have to be a lot cleverer than tha has been so far...an no mistek

Hi Julie,

i would be keen to understand what help and assistance SARC have given to SJ/HDT as noted below. please can you supply me this information.

Tony..............would you be good enough to answer the questions Abolex have asked you, its the second time they have been posted for you

Thank you Briando,

here is the reply posted on the litigation thread earlier today.

22 Dec 2008 12:50 PM TonyMal Finca I've made 611 posts

Dear Martin, Unfortunately some of us have been busy doing Christmas shopping but I have just read your rather odd posting. I am suprised that you take umberage with my posting as it is a general comment  regarding the costs v benifit of litigation in the administration process. I have taken advice from a chartered accountant, my Uk regulated solicitor and my Spanish solicitor/ barrister and none of them have the view that it would be sensible to undertake litigation. In fact I have been adviced that not only would I most probably not improve the outcome for myself but also I would of incuured additional costs. I have a question for you: Are you asking for an upfront fee to represent clients in litiagation or is it on a no win no fee basis? You say, "Believe or not, we are here to help, advice and defend the best interest for our clients" , if that is truly the case why did the solicitors representing 75% of the purchasers not represent them properly and ensure that they were protected by having the Bank Gaurantee that they should of had under the Spanish law?  I am afraid that in my opinion the behaviour and standards of practice by some in the past do not appear to have been undertaken in the best interest of clients. Are you defending their past actions and feel that they were are acceptable?  As for the other question that you ask  I am sure that you know the answer as does my solicitor/ barrister. Now as for asking if i have read the report, that is an intersting comment as you have not challenged one of your clients who claims that she recieved a full translation from her soliciotor nor have you offered to provide it for all to see. Have you fully translated the report and given it to your clients? My barrister has read it and will be providing me and his other clients with a concidered opinion shortly but has said that it looks positive and he feels that refinancing of Hdt and SADM is an attractive prospect for investors.  Perhaps that is why there are negotiations taking place regading with 3 different parites.  I am sorry that comment appears to have upset you but you must admit that by going by past experiences that it is hard to to trust a profession that, in my opinion have let a lot of purchasers down from the very start of the purchasing process. All the best Yes and still   I WANT MY HOUSE AND FOR ALL TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO HAVE THEIRS' TOO! Tony

Thanks Tony

Have a good Christmas and look forward to a better new year for one and all.

Hi Tony.

From what i understand, the NO WIN NO FEE basis is not legal in Spain as it is in the U.K.

                   Bob.

Unless it is under "Tiger's" laws of the land.

Think that buy now he would have had one of his many, many advisors confirm if that is correct or not.
Simple question for one to ask your own advisor?

Hi All ,

The end of December report has now been posted onto the SARC website and is there for all to read. We are still in the process of getting the report translated, the festive season not helping, but we are persevering and wish for it to be able for all to read.

I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year and hope that the ongoing negotiations with the 3 different parties can be sucesfully concluded soon and that SADM can then proceed, resulting in us being able to have our properties.

I wish you all well and remind you all that....... I WANT MY HOUSE AND FOR YOU ALL TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO HAVE YOURS TOO.

Tony R17 18

Why do you persist in this Tosh

JA ,

I am afraid due to your strange contradictions and ramblings, I  do not care what you think.

 I WANT MY HOUSE

Tony R17 18

Said with his tongue sticking out.
Not playing your games any more.

Try being an adult and addressing a serious matter accordingly.

Basically, grow up.

Whatever ! Tony time will tell HdT are heading into liquidation as we speak  .Have you done all you could do to protect yourself ? I think not ! I am sorry you did not listen to anyone except the enemy .Shame  but thats life we can not always help those who do not want to help themselves  JA .

Question of SARC leaders.

Why is the following point made on your December 29 newsletter?

The Court has authorised the sale of a plot of land for around 15.6 million Euros to continue the work at el Pinet.

Briando,

The mention of el Pinet is for a couple of purchasers who asked for information on el Pinet, so we have kindly obliged and asked for them. I think that is quite simple.

All the best.

Tony 

Hi All,

I think that this piece that was placed on the SARC website back in July may have more significance now so I am posting it below.

Thoughts on Purchasers Options

The meetings that SARC attended and are reported upon the SARC website have given some cause for deep thought as to outcomes for purchasers at SADM.
Several key points have been noted that impact upon the decisions to be made regarding whether to continue with the purchase or to stay as a creditor and try to regain the money paid.

It can be seen clearly in the report that the deposits, although auditable and appropriately accountable are not all sitting in a ring fenced client account. This is information was given with some discomfort by SJ/HDT but we needed to know the truth regarding the position of the deposits. When we attended the meeting we were not sure either way regarding the existence of a client account, as there had been two mutually contradicting postings on the EOS forum. We sought to clarify this and in doing so found that only a small proportion of the funds are kept in an account linked to bank guarantees.

Therefore, we are very concerned that if purchasers decide to try to get their deposits back that several factors need to be considered:
􀀢 Only a small proportion of clients money is in a clearly identified account
􀀢 Money can only come from the company trading out of difficulty or through liquidation of the company.
􀀢 If agreement can be made with creditors regarding debts the company can carry on trading.
􀀢 Liquidation of the company would take time and in the current economic climate not realise intrinsic value of assets.
􀀢 Staff, Government, Court/Administrators, Banks come before purchasers in line of payment.
􀀢 Any interest or compensation claim would come at the end of the line of payouts and as such is highly unlikely.

Taking these points into account we cannot see how it can benefit any purchasers to go down the route of trying to get back their money. We understand the wish to protect your investment in your property/ies but believe that going down the legal route will have small return, cost money and have lots of stress. As of yet no one has been able to give a good reason how it is beneficial to try to get your money back!

If on the other hand we support the continuation of SADM and we take up the offer to continue to purchase we can have, although it may have been delayed, our property. This is a much clearer and by far a better outcome for most if not all of SADM purchasers. It has been made clear to us that SADM is a legal development; the licences are there, the water is there, and that the location is desirable and not part of the coastal property bubble.

It would therefore, seem prudent for all purchasers to actively seek to get SADM built and ensure that liquidation of the company does not occur. We may not be happy with the situation that we find our selves in caused, primarily by the credit crunch and banks, but we can try to ensure that our money is safe by getting SADM built.
With regard to solicitors it is essential to realise that if you decide to continue with your purchase the legal fees should be less and thus there could be a conflict of interests. Think very carefully about what you want and what is best for you, not your legal representative who is getting paid. If you do decide to continue with your (the purchase of your property) property, it would be a good idea to ask about a reduction in your legal costs, as you will not be going through a protracted legal procedure. Why for example pay 10% of your deposit if you are not pursuing a claim through the Courts?
23 July 2008 SARC Admin.

Tony incase you haven't noticed no one gives a fig about SARC's  thoughts or speculation anymore .SADM is not going a head there is no finance avaliable,and  even if  this huge problem is overcome and it goes ahead we are talking about at least a 5 year time scale with a completely different company with no obligation to honour the HdT contract or price .Purchasers will not get the plot they choose. The development will be very much scaled down as will the facilities .Now I am not sure which part of the report you do not understand ,but please for God sake give the rest of us a break. Enjoy your bubble  but the rest of us live in the real world  Regards , you are such a muppet JA

Hi All,

    Not posted for a while with work and family life but just to reiterate what out barrister said to us is that the report clearly shows

                       1.there is no cash in the company            2. No leagal chalenge to creditor status                3. the best option for all is that they get refinanced

Its no good shouting at each other I believe we need to push as a group to get the funds secured all those  that have a spanish bank accounts need to write to their bank managers and the head offices as well with calls for support of the refinance of the company we might not be able to influece them but then again we just might  and we could also do this via email so what is the postage to sdpain these days is it worth a stamp.  I will get a template done and put it on SARC website for download all you have to do is download the document and add your details and either post it or email to the bank what do you feel about it do you wish to try. if they see that there is the possibility of making a few quid in this climate they might bite.

regards Brianmags

R4 556

Brian/Tony

Not wanting to distract from other posts i will start by saying to anyone reading this, read the one before it as well, and the one on the other sarc thread for balance.

Its the way i read your post and the way i think that has some differences.  First point is the administration is coming to a close, the protection from creditors will therefore be over.  The judge, you say will try to find solutions.  I say its not the judges job or remit to do that.  The judge will weigh up the evidence from the administration and base a judgement on whether the company is viable or not.  If not, which is probably the case, it is open to being wound up by the creditors, the taxman, the banks, the IVA (government) and even owd twyitt imself

If you look back at the postings from the start of the concurso i did forewarn, like one of the 4 horsemen, that the protection of the concurso is temporary and the real bloodbath will start afterwards.  Get ready for it to become interesting.  Also Brian your postings say the barrister has stated you can not change your legal status and the company has no money............Thats quite a barrister you have there old son, very opinionated.  Barristers have the job to formulate arguments and then take them to court.

You simply dont get a barrister who says there is no argument............its a contradiction in terms, they form arguments and do it from all sorts of areas...........for instance the newspaper cutting you scanned could form part of an argument.........i think someone is pulling my plonker when they say a barrister has said that. 

Then the scanned letter in the newspaper.  This says to me the Spanish housing purchase system is corrupt.  But there are great differences between your situation and the one in the newspaper, didnt you spot them?  The house is being built illegaly?

If i worked for the bank with the bank guarantees i wouldnt be stumping up money to prop up a builder who is working illegaly, would you?..........look at the terms and conditions of the BG and the answer will lie in that for that scanned letter.  Its not a good example for the SADM development, maybe you asked your same barrister about that too?  Maybe he didnt find an argument!!!

I saw the reply from Tony about the El pinet reference in the SARC report.  Here is my thought on that one.  That information was only put on there to give some weight to money becoming available at SADM.  It was of course mis-leading information at best, because that money is not part of the SADM administration.........................If you had any intention of being accurate in your reports you would state that and not make an open reference to something from a different administration in context of SADM information.  I dont need a barrister to drive a bus through the SARC mis-information, SARC needs maybe to dump the barrister and employ a collective solicitor who knows whats going on, instead of trying to make out its better to go without one.

Regards Brian

twigit 

Eyup Twigitt

Yep the legal brains are there to make up a case for you and represent you in court, thats what mine is doing and he's pretty good at it too.  This builder is only in a concurso, which is a protected administration, where the trading options are looked at by bankers, lawyers and business sector.  The whole point im trying to tub thump is that its only the beginning of the process, what comes next, if they have no money, as you say, is they get finance to carry on or go bust.  But thery have to be capable and honest as well, othwerwise its dead duck land.

If they can get finance, its a step forward, but what about honouring contracts, what about supplying the site that you wanted and all the facilities.  What if they get finance now, and then its found they cant carry on anyway, cos when they get some money all the customers say.....av changed me mind and i want my money back...or they say.no more money until the house is completed and ready to hand over.    Also what about the contracts that have expired, when do you get them re-instated....after they get some finance?  Naw thats not even close to being legal never mind honourable (ask yer barrister geezer).....................Twigitt yer not a businessman are you me owd................

How can i put it more easy ter understand....on a scale of 1 to 10 of this ere sadm place being built by these people............its about 20.  Being built by someone else may be a different prospect.

The role of the barrister is for the solicitors to approach and formulate arguments, based on prior or existing caselaw, to take to the bench in high court.......................they  also give private opinions to solicitors and solicitors take advice on how to proceed,

That barrister, whoever he or she is, wont tell you if a builder has no money or if its best to let them get finance....they are commercial decisions, not legal ones me owd mucker. 

I am 100% sure its best to get the builder on the back foot and greet em warmly by the throat, and say we ad enough, your going bust, lets see what you can come up with in a proper administration, cos i will rub me crystall balls and say, if you give em any more money, you will just lose it unless you get proper contracts, proper business propositions and the financial means to do it. 

Just one out of them 3 isnt enough im afraid