VICTORY FOR FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP LAWSUIT 2 IN FIRST INSTANCE COURT IN HELLÍN

Hi Keith,

Firstly congratulations again to you and the others in the Action Group for winning your fight again Cam Bank!!

I am interested to know if you eventually got interest and legal fees paid ??

Also has anyone been back to the Development recently - just wondering what state it is in now ?

Kind Regards

Sauzee

Hi Sauzee

Thank you for your words of congratulation regarding the Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 1 against Cleyton GES SL & Banco CAM.

With regards to Interest & Costs - Here is an update regarding the current situation:

VICTORY IN THE ALBACETE APPEAL COURT

On 11 April 2013 the Albacete Appeal Court dismissed the Banco CAM appeal and confirmed the First Instance Sentence in full.

In July 2012 we had provisionally enforced the First Instance Sentence issued on 8 June 2012 by the First Instance Court in Hellín against both defendants and this resulted in Banco CAM paying the funds to the Court bank account on 1 August 2012.

The First Instance Court then issued a decree on 2 October 2012 that stated:

“Not to issue the corresponding payments to the individual claimants, which must remain in the Court bank account at Banesto until the Provincial Appeal Court Sentencing”.

On 7 November 2012 the First Instance Judge issued an Order confirming the above decree.

On 15 April 2013 following the Albacete Provincial Appeal Court Sentencing we continued the enforcement procedure that we first started in July 2012. 

On 15 May 2013 the Sentence against Banco CAM was declared definitive and final.

REFUNDS of PRINCIPAL DEPOSITS TO GROUP MEMBERS IN LAWSUIT 1

In June 2013 the 47 group members in LAWSUIT 1 received a refund of the principal amount of their deposit less 10% costs retention.

INTEREST & COSTS

Costs & Interest were imposed jointly and severally on Cleyton GES SL & Banco CAM by the Judge in the First Instance Court and on Banco CAM by the Magistrates in the Albacete Appeal Court.

The Sentence states that interest is payable at the legal rate on a simple basis from the date of filing the Lawsuit which was February 2011 until August 2012 which was the date that Banco CAM paid the funds to the Court following the Provisional Enforcement that we had filed in July 2012 and after the issuing of the Asset Freezing Order by the Court.

We have already submitted our calculations to the Court for the interest and costs.  The Court has sent this document to Banco CAM.

BANCO CAM OPPOSES THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS

Not surprisingly Banco CAM has opposed the imposition of costs and the costs calculation.  Banco CAM is arguing that it paid the money VOLUNTARILY to the Court so costs are not to be imposed on them.

The fact is that Banco CAM is wrong because the Law says that Costs will follow even if this were the case.  But the truth is that they did not pay voluntarily.  They only paid after our provisional enforcement was filed and after the Court issued a freezing order on the Bank’s assets/accounts.

We have now filed the appropriate pleas to the Court to oppose Banco CAM’s arguments.

I am sorry to say that this kind of behaviour by the Bank is only to be expected.  Due to a total lack of Supervision by the Banco de España the Spanish Banks were allowed to abuse consumer rights over the past 10 to 15 years by:

Ignoring the inalienable rights established by LEY 57/1968

Including the Cláusula Suelo in thousands of mortgages that created a clear imbalance in contractual rights as it was totally in favour of the Bank

Granting mortgages on illegal properties

and most recently:

Including abusive conditions in property purchase contracts for repossessed properties that they were attempting to sell to new buyers http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/11339/Legal-tip-1031-Astonishedon-Banks-and-tricky-property-sales-contract.aspx

With regards to your final question regarding the Finca Parcs development - the last time I saw it was in May 2012 when we attended the trial in Hellín.  Then it was just as it had been left when abandoned by Cleyton GES in May 2009 with just one security guard on the gate.  I suspect it is still the same now.

Kind regards

Keith

 

Brilliant informative posting Keith.

With regard to the Bank Guarantee abuse, sadly it appears that the Banks are making a mockery of the Spanish Justice system, using their apparent "ignorance" relating to inalienable rights as per Ley 57/68 (some might suggest it is not ignorance but a blatant attempt to deny their responsibilities), together with the lack of time constraints (deadlines) in the Justice system which are  failing to ensure that regulatory proceedings are conducted in a timely way that respects the due process of law. With this in mind two important aspects then arise from this.

1) In the absence of the BDE effectively supervising the Banks there becomes an immediate requirement to ensure that legal representatives consistently report all of these instances of abuse of consumer rights to the relevant Spanish Authorities, so that they be placed on official record, which in turn can be monitored by external bodies such as the World Justice Project. So long as these instances remain "hidden from view" and the Spanish Authorities fail to take action, the innocent consumer will continue to be at risk.

 2) A specialised fast track court system becomes essential to ensure that Ley 57/68 is repected in its entirety by  expert analysis of the evidence provided from the outset, together with all relevant rulings that have been achieved to date to prove developer breach of contract, thereby discounting false claims by the Banks. Such detail as illegal BG's (which includes for instance those entities not recognised in Spain, or illegal post dating), non provision of BG's, generic BG's, provisional enforcements, freezing orders, whatever has been accumulated as evidence should be expertly analysed and swiftly and consistently ruled upon (with applicable costs and interest also expertly assessed at that moment in time). So long as the Banks have the ability to muddy the waters with their false claims (whether in first instance or appeal) the longer this fiasco will continue, At present it appears that lack of expert comprehension of Ley 57/68 and the Banks ability to "play" the system of delays to their advantage is all adding to the detriment of the innocent consumer, not to mention a complete waste of court resources.

Surely this would prove more cost effective in the longer term?

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP - LAWSUIT 1
BANK ACTION AGAINST CAM BANK (now BANCO SABADELL) ACCORDING TO ITS OBLIGATIONS & LIABILITIES ACCORDING TO SPANISH LAW - LEY 57/1968

In June 2012 we won in the First Instance Court in Hellín against CAM Bank (now Sabadell).

In April 2013 the CAM Bank Appeal was rejected by the Albacete Provincial Appeal Court and the First Instance Sentence upheld in full.

In June 2013 the 47 group members in FPAG Lawsuit 1 received a refund of the principal amount of their off-plan deposit less a 10% retention.

This week, according to the Court Sentence, the 47 group members are receiving a final payment which includes a refund of the 10% retention, refund of Provision of Funds paid to the Lawyers and a refund of Interest that was awarded by the Judge at the legal rate from the filing of the Lawsuit (Feb 2011) until the date the bank paid to the Court.

So in summary each group member received a FULL REFUND OF THEIR OFF-PLAN DEPOSIT THAT WAS PAID TO THE CAM BANK ACCOUNTS OPENED BY THE DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES S.L., A REFUND OF THE PROVISION OF FUNDS PAID TO THE LAWYERS IN 2010 PLUS INTEREST AS AWARDED IN THE COURT SENTENCE.

It should be remembered that no person in the group of 47 received a BANK GUARANTEE for their off-plan deposit.

It has taken a long time as I began gathering evidence and researching Spanish Law in 2007, worked on the Lawsuit throughout 2010 with Costaluz Lawyers & their litigator Jaime de Castro, filed the Lawsuit in February 2011, won in the First Instance Court in June 2012 and won in the Provincial Appeal Court in April 2013.

But, not a bad result considering the fact that in 2008 when I started the Finca Parcs Action Group I was told by most Spanish Lawyers that we would never win against the Bank because the banks had no responsibility according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968.

So finally the case of Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 1 is completed and all group members have been refunded.

I have learnt that when dealing with the Spanish legal system, patience is needed and no outcome can be guaranteed.  But finally in this case we won and all group members are happy with the final result and a full refund plus legal interest.

Thanks to María de Castro from Costaluz Lawyers for believing in me back in 2008 and suffering my 'dog with a bone' attitude over the past 6 years!!  If she had brushed me aside back in 2008 like most Spanish Lawyers then probably this landmark victory would not have been possible.

Thanks also to Jaime de Castro with whom I worked so closely on the Lawsuit, Preliminary Hearing and Trial.  He did a truly fantastic job for which we are all very grateful.

Thanks also to all the group members who were so patient over the past 5 years.

Cheers!

Keith
FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

Fantastic achievement Keith, Maria, Costaluz team, Jamie de Castro and so happy for you all....

I so relate to your dog with a bone mentality, and just pray that justice prevails for ongoing cases. So proud of your endeavours. 

Wonderful. Well done.

Thanks Keith.

Your tenacity made this happen!

Maria

Brilliant result. Tenacity does pay off! I wonder what all those solicitors who turned you down/criticised you now feel?? Let's hope that other banks learn from this too!

I presume the next set of claims should go the same way for the other purchasers - lets cross our fingers it happens for them too.

Thanks Ads & Gill.

Funnily enough some of those Lawyers that turned me down and criticised me are now 'Experts in Actions against Banks according to LEY 57/1968' :-)

Keith

Yes Keith. Sadly still many question marks remain.

Not least how justice is consistently achieved and recognised (demonstrating moral authority) by the judiciary and Supreme Court, against those from all persuasions who tried (and still try) to manipulate/deny their responsibilities with regards to provision of legal BG's, adherence to contract end dates and enforcement of Ley 57/68 in its entirety,  and the compromising effects from circumstances completely out of your control (lack of time constraints on judicial procedures, legal misinterpretations, failures to take early action against developers/Banks etc).

The fight goes on...... but in the interim its so reassuring to witness how justice can be achieved when tenacity and a supportive and courageous law firm prevails!!!!

Thanks Ads!

Cheers!

Maria

Hi Keith,

Well done to everyone concerned and what a fantastic result.

I wonder if you have any idea why the Judge only back dated the interest from when you filed the Lawsuit (Feb 2011), surely the Bank have had use of your money i.e. making more money for the bank, ever since you made your first deposit ??

BTW regarding other Lawyers and Law firms, if my memory serves me correctly, I think I can remember;  in the dim and distant past, somone calling you... "Ambulance Chasers"........how times have changed and how wrong they were !!!

Hi Belucky

Thanks for your comments.

The Judge had the option to give interest from:

The date the off-plan deposits were paid to the developer (various dates between 2004 to 2006)

The date of filing of the Lawsuit (Feb 2011)

The date of the Sentence (June 2012)

Based on her considerations of the whole case and other rulings regarding the awarding of interest she opted for the 'middle ground' - from the date of filing of the Lawsuit.

We could have appealed this, but given that fact that it was a Landmark ruling and one of the very first successful sentences against a Bank in a case where no bank guarantees existed for the claimants, we decided it was best to be grateful for an excellent First Instance Sentence against the Bank.

Yes, I was criticised a lot in those early years.  I was accused of 'Preying on Despair' being an 'Ambulance Chaser' and running an unethical and aggressive campaign............

But that is all history now and I suppose the biggest compliment is that many Law Firms in Spain are now taking actions against Banks according to LEY 57/1968.  So that is good for those Law Firms and more importantly good for the Purchasers who have lost their hard earned money.

Kind regards

Keith

I understand your logic (re the middle ground re interest) where refund of costs have also been awarded, Keith, but for those who submitted claims in the "early years" who did not take a case against the developer AND Bank jointly and severally, they appear to have lost their right to return of costs as per their successful ruling against the developer, and will only be able to reclaim costs against the Bank.

Claimants in this scenario will not only have been financially compromised (through no fault of their own), but they would have also been subjected to stress associated with TWO prolonged cases. This is due to the fact that major court and judicial delays for all too many, ironically, compromised their ability to regain timely return of monies from the developer (due to bankruptcy/administration in the lengthy interim period) leaving them with no option but to place a 2nd claim against the Bank.

For these cases do you think return of interest backdated to the date of the offplan deposits would be considered a fair ruling by the judiciary as an alternative means of recovering all claimants’ costs, from the Banks (who either failed to ensure legal guarantees were made available, as required by law, or who provided a generic BG)?

Hi Ads

What you say is true.  In those early years (2007 to 2011) there was little or no Case Law to support action against the Banks according to LEY 57/1968.  At that time it was important for many people to obtain contract cancellation.  Most got this via an action against the Developer.  Unfortunately, during those legal actions many developers became insolvent and although most Judges awarded contract cancellation and a refund of deposit, very few claimants were successfully able to enforce the sentence against the now insolvent developers.

However, it must be remembered that contract cancellation was and still is a very important aspect of any new action against the Bank.

Having contract cancellation in a previous action strengthens the new action against the Bank.  It reduces the arguments that the Bank can use as there is now no valid arguments regarding the possible or future completion of the property and honouring of any purchase contract.  This was a risk in joint actions against developer and bank - as the fact that at the time of filing of the Lawsuit and subsequent Preliminary Hearings & Final Hearings the purchase contract was still 'valid'.  Therefore the banks and developers could possibly use this to their advantage, especially if the delay in completion was relatively short or if the property was almost completed or if there was a reasonable chance of the developer completing the construction.

So in a joint action there were 2 main arguments that the claimants were trying to win - Contract Cancellation and then the joint liability of bank and developer for the refund of off-plan deposit.

For those buyers who now already have contract cancellation in a previous action against the developer, their subsequent action against the bank is somewhat clearer as there is no argument regarding the validity of the purchase contract.  The main argument can instead focus on the liability for refund.

Of course, any legal fees incurred in a previous action against the developer cannot be claimed in a subsequent action against the bank, as the bank was not party to the original action.

I have seen many successful actions against banks, following a previous action against the developer, where in the Bank Action the Judge has imposed interest on the Bank from the date the off-plan deposit was paid to the developer.  However, this is up to each individual Judge in each individual case based on the available evidence.

As we all know nothing can be certain in any legal case.

Kind regards

Keith
FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

 

Many thanks for the clarification Keith, which hopefully will help others to understand the complexities. It's much appreciated.

It's reassuring to know that you have seen many other successful actions against the Bank where interest has been applied from the date of offplan deposit (following previous action against the developer) so all we can hope is that this level of detail will be brought to the attention of the judge in order to gain fair and consistent rulings. I understand your caution but part of the problem that many appear to be subjected to in Spain is the lack of consistency and/or in some cases misinterpretation of Ley 57/68, which will hopefully reduce as the legal arguments and precedence is made known to the judiciary.

Perhaps it's also important to highlight that precedence from the Supreme Court has now been established regarding delays....as per Maria's blog titled "NEW! Supreme Court says every delay brings a cancellation, under Law 57/68" http://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/costaluz/13322/Legal-tip-1176-NEW-Supreme-Court-says-every-delay-brings-a-cancellation-under-Law-5768.aspx

What I am confused about however is that I note that your joint case for cancellation and refund was not submitted for several years after deposits were placed, and this new SC ruling appears to imply that this new ruling relating to delays would now not be applicable for such timeframes, as it makes reference to " if cancellation rights are activated early after the delay"? Have I understood this correctly Keith?

Fair and consistent rulings, we can but hope.  The problem is that it is not just one court and one judge presiding over all the Bank Action cases.  Cases are heard in many different regional jurisdictions throughout Spain.  Each Judge or Magistrate issues a Sentence based on the arguments and evidence in each individual case.  They interpret the facts according to their own understanding and based on available Case Law from their own Provincial Appeal Court.

The problem we face is that some Courts are favourable to developers and banks and others are favourable to consumers.  No Judge or Magistrate is bound to follow any particular case law although they will I am sure be guided by Case Law from their own Provincial Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

But Judges and Magistrates are not duty bound to to follow a Supreme Court ruling.  The only time a Judge or Magistrate is bound to follow a previous ruling or case law is when there are 2 identical rulings relating to exactly the same situation issued by the Supreme Court.  Then Judges and Magistrates from the lower courts must follow.

Regarding cancellation rights, I think you are referring to María's blog post about the Supreme Court ruling on delays.  I think in this context, cancellation rights do not need to have been activated in a previous Court procedure, but can be demonstrated by producing copies of official burofaxes/letters to the developer and/or bank asking for contract cancellation citing breach of contract by the developer due to delay in construction.

In our Finca Parcs case that you mention, yes you are correct - our groups purchase contracts were signed in 2006 but we did not file the Lawsuit until February 2011.  However we could demonstrate that during the period 2008 to 2010 we had sent several letters, burofaxes and emails to the developer and bank asking for contract cancellation and a refund due to delay.  We also sent letters of complaint to the CAM Bank London office and Head Office in Alicante, to the Spanish Government etc.  So we could demonstrate without any doubt that we had attempted to activate cancellation rights on many occasions prior to filing the Lawsuit.

Kind regards

Keith
FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP

Hi Keith, 

Excuse my ignorance on Spanish Court procedure but regarding your refunds of your "provision of funds to your lawyers" and the "interest on your deposits", how does it come that you have just received these now ?

I see that you had court results and appearances in June 2012, April 2013, June 2013 and August 2014, why was it not possible to request these costs earlier ?

Hi Belucky

Long story....but to keep it as simple as possible:

We won in First Instance Court in June 2012.  We enforced the Sentence against the Bank and the Bank paid the principal plus interest and an estimated amount for costs to the Court in August 2012.

The Court stated that it would not release the funds (approx 1.9 million euros) until after the Appeal Court Sentence was issued.

The Bank appealed against the First Instance Sentence.  The Appeal was heard in March 2013 and the Sentence from the Appeal Court was issued in April 2013.  The Banks appeal was dismissed in full.  The Bank then had 20 working days to decide if it was going to file a Cassation Appeal to the Supreme Court.  It did not.  In May 2013 the Sentence against developer and bank - jointly and severally liable - was declared firm and final.

The Principal amount of the deposits was released by the Court in June 2013.  The Court retained the interest and costs.

Costs and interest calculations were then submitted to the Court by Costaluz Lawyers and the Procurator.

The Bank opposed the costs.  We argued against this.  The Court then issued its final decision on the exact amount of interest and costs.

This process then took until now to be fully resolved.  The Court then released the interest and costs.

So the group members received the Principal amount of their off-plan deposits less costs in June/July 2013 and then the interest and costs in August 2014.

Finally Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 1 (47 group members) is closed.

Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 2 (13 group members) has a Preliminary Hearing scheduled for the end of October 2014.

Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 3 & 4 will filed in September 2014.

Kind regards

Keith

And this Keith, believe it or not, is relatively swift by comparison to some courts .......

Thanks for all your clarifications and honest appraisals.

Let's hope tenacity continues to prevail.

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP vs CAJA DE AHORROS DEL MEDITERRÁNEO (CAM BANK) & SPANISH PROPERTY DEVELOPER, CLEYTON GES SL

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – LAWSUIT 2

TRIAL TO TAKE PLACE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE COURT IN HELLÍN ON MONDAY 28 SEPTEMBER 2015 AT 10AM

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – LAWSUIT 2 TRIAL

Disgraced CAM Bank, once described by the Governor of the Bank of Spain as the ‘worst of the worst’ is back in Court again.  On Monday 28 September at 10am the Trial will take place for 13 members of Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 2 against the off-plan property developer, Cleyton GES SL & the financing bank, Banco CAM, which was purchased by Banco Sabadell.

The group members in Finca Parcs Lawsuit 2, which was submitted to the Court in December 2012, are claiming a refund of almost half a million Euros that they paid between 2005 & 2008 to the developer’s accounts opened at Banco CAM for off-plan properties that were never built.  According to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968 the Bank, under its responsibility, should demand that the corresponding individual Guarantees are issued for off-plan buyers funds held in the developer’s accounts at its branches.  The Bank failed in this legal obligation.

The off-plan project, Las Higuericas Finca Parcs, which is close to the village of Argramón in Albacete, has been abandoned since 2009 when the bank withdrew funding and the developer ran out of money.  Only 10% of the 617 luxury detached villas were completed, but not even these were issued with the First Occupation Licence by the local Town Hall.

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP LAWSUIT 1

Banco CAM has already lost one landmark legal case on this development to the 47 buyers in Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 1.

In that case the First Instance Sentence issued in June 2012 which was then ratified by the Provincial Appeal Court in April 2013 concluded that both the developer and Bank failed to fulfil their legal obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968 and that CAM Bank was guilty of malpractice and a complete dereliction of its duties.

The Bank & developer were convicted jointly and severally to return off-plan deposits paid by the 47 buyers totalling almost 1.5 million Euros.  Banco CAM paid and all the group members received a full refund of their off-plan deposit plus interest & costs.

LAWSUIT 2 CLAIMANTS CALLED TO APPEAR IN COURT BY BANCO CAM

In May 2012 Banco CAM called all 47 group members of Lawsuit 1 to the Court in Hellín for questioning at the Trial.  Despite the fact that all 13 claimants in Lawsuit 2 are in exactly the same situation as the successful claimants in Lawsuit 1, the Bank has still called 3 of the Lawsuit 2 claimants to appear in person at the Trial for questioning.

The trial will take place in the First Instance Court in Hellín on Monday 28 September and the Judge is expected to issue her Sentence a few weeks after that.

Finca Parcs Action Group Leader, Keith Rule says:

“It was hugely significant when we beat CAM Bank in Lawsuit 1 in 2012 and even more so when the First Instance Sentence was then confirmed by the Provincial Appeal Court in April 2013.

But here we go again with the Trial for Lawsuit 2 and the Bank has yet again called claimants to appear for questioning in Court.  Let us hope that the outcome will be the same as in Lawsuit 1.

In 2008 & 2009 when I formed the Finca Parcs Action Group I was of the opinion that developer’s banks had liabilities and obligations according to Spanish Law, LEY 57/1968, regarding off-plan deposit funds, but one of my biggest hurdles back then was to find a Lawyer who also shared my view. 

Fortunately I found Costaluz Lawyers, who since winning the first Finca Parcs case have now won similar cases for many other clients on failed off-plan property projects all over Spain.

We have worked tirelessly since 2008 to highlight this issue in the media and to the Spanish & British Governments.  The Finca Parcs case has no doubt helped to strengthen the cases of other off-plan buyers who did not receive the legally required Bank Guarantees, but there are still many people who paid off-plan deposits between 2002 & 2009 who have not yet started legal action against the developer’s bank.

To those off-plan buyers I would say, never give up.  Focus on recovering your money from the developer’s bank, the bank that received your off-plan deposit and failed in its obligations under Spanish Law.  A significant amount of Case Law is now on your side”

María de Castro, Director of Costaluz Lawyers comments:

“Finca Parcs Lawsuit 1 was a magnificent result in favour of the consumer, but it was just the start.  Over the past 3 years we have won many other cases against Banks and we look forward to another successful result in Finca Parcs Action Group Lawsuit 2”

Group Lawyer, Jaime de Castro comments:

“Over the past few years it has become clear that Spanish legislation protects off-plan house buyers with protective rules that do not exist in other European countries.  The Spanish Courts have been applying this Law strictly and categorically and I am confident this will also be the case in Finca Parcs Lawsuit 2”



FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – TIMELINE OF THE LEGAL ACTION – LAWSUIT 2

● 2005 to 2008 - No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling almost half
   a million Euros
● December 2012 – Lawsuit 2 against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed to the Court
● 28 October 2014 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 28 September 2015 - Trial to be held in First Instance Court - Hellín

FINCA PARCS ACTION GROUP – TIMELINE OF THE LEGAL ACTION – LAWSUIT 1

● 2006 - No legally required Bank Guarantees for Off-Plan deposits totalling 1.5 million
   Euros
● February 2011 – Lawsuit 1 against CAM Bank & developer Cleyton GES SL filed to Court

● 12 January 2012 - First Instance Court Preliminary Hearing
● 21 & 22 May 2012 - Trial held in First Instance Court - Hellín

● 8 June 2012 - Judgment released in favour of Finca Parcs Action Group
● CAM Bank and Cleyton GES SL sentenced to return deposits amounting to almost 1.5  
   million Euros to the buyers with the addition of legal interest and costs
● July 2012 - CAM Bank appeals the First Instance Court Judgment
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group submits Opposition to the CAM Appeal
● July 2012 - Finca Parcs Action Group file Provisional Enforcement Order to the Court
● August 2012 – CAM Bank pays full amount of deposits plus legal interest and costs
    to the Court
● Appeal to be heard by the Albacete Appeal Court
● 4 March 2013 - Appeal Magistrates to meet for deliberation & voting on the CAM Bank Appeal
● 11 April 2013 – Appeal court dismisses the CAM Bank Appeal and confirms First Instance   
   Sentence in full and imposes costs of Appeal on CAM Bank

● 14 May 2013 - CAM Bank does NOT appeal to the Supreme Court
● 14 May 2013 - FIRST INSTANCE & APPEAL COURT SENTENCE NOW FIRM AND FINAL
● June 2013 - Court releases Principal Amount of buyers off-plan deposits amounting to almost    
   1.5 million Euros to the Finca Parcs Action Group Legal Team
● July 2014 – Court releases Interest & Costs to the Finca Parcs Action Group Legal Team
● ALL 47 BUYERS RECEIVED A FULL REFUND OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST & COSTS