SARC update 14 October

 

Dear All,

It has been a week since Linda and David met with Almudena and the report has now been circulated so I ‘phoned and asked Almudena about the refinancing. 

I have been informed that there are two different parties being negotiated with and that an agreement is close to being agreed. One of the parties wishes to purchase 50% of the San Jose Group of companies and that the other is only interested in SADM. The party that is interested in Herrado Del Tollo and SADM plus has the funds readily available to cover the 4.5 million Euros for the expropriation of the land and cost of the final build licence from the town hall. 

I was informed that the administrators want the refinancing agreement to be completed and signed before they return to the court with their report. 

.I contacted Almudena via e mail and asked for confirmation of the situation with purchasers with BGs.  

“Almudena had a meeting last week with the administrators and lawyers of some clients of Santa Ana. They discussed the matter concerning those clients with and without BG. The lawyers wanted the resolution of contracts for their clients and the Administrators told them that they would agree to give a resolution to those with bank guarantees but not to those without because it will not help these clients as this doesn't mean they are going to receive the monies sooner. No, this is not how it works. They are creditors as will be part of the "Convenio" and monies will be returned to them when and how the Judges rules.
They have agreed to a resolution of contract to those with BG but only if they do not request interest on the monies, as if they do, then a resolution contract will not be signed. If they give up their interest, then the resolution contract will be signed and the bank will return them the monies and then the bank will inform the Court that they have returned to such client, such amount and that now the named bank is now creditor for that amount.

Conclusion, it does not speed up the process just by having a resolution contract signed, specially not to those without the BG as this will only cut down their options. ie, continue with property, cancel the purchase or any other options that may arise at that time.
We will only give a resolution contract to those with BG and that do not request interest, NOT to those that do request interests.” 

Opinion: 

From the above I conclude that the directors of HdT and SJ are under pressure from the administrators to conclude the refinancing and I feel that the probability of SADM going ahead is high. I further believe that purchasers should wait for the courts decision before rushing into any binding decisions and leave their option open as to whether they wish to have their property or to become a creditor. 

14 Oct 2008

Hi Tony and all that reads this thread,
                     I do take heart from this from a person without a BG and feel that we may have a positive outcome thanks for the update
brianmags

It would appear that, from news I have received about the ongoing negotiations with all concerned that those with a BG, will be able to get their money back, by having their contracts reversed, and the banks to pay out.

Those without a BG however, have a couple of options.

They can either wait.......or sue SJ/HdT on a separate court case, asking for the contract to be reversed.

We have been advised that this is not recommended because it really has no advantage on our position as a creditor and will mean extra fees and costs to pay. Only if the court ever decided to proceed with the construction, and we were not interested at all in having our house built, then it would be wise to consider having our contract reversed and getting our money back.In any case, we don’t see any chances at all on the site continuing (at least before formal bankruptcy is declared) so the effect will be the same as soon as the Judge decides the creditors have to be paid back and all contracts must be reversed.

Hi All,
This is from the e mail that Barry 210357 is refering to. I have put in bold the bit about those with out BGs

"First of all, we are meeting the administrators on Thursday, which may give me a bit more of information, but the following is the latest official information.

Apparently San Jose has accepted to reverse the contracts of those that have a Bank Guarantee. They do this on the basis that in order to execute the BG against a bank the contract must have been cancelled beforehand.

They will reverse the contracts on the basis that the capital only is paid back (not the interest), which basically means that those who accept this deal will get back their funds from the banks and will not have more rights against San Jose / Herrada.

The execution of the BG will have to be done directly with the bank and, in case the bank does not accept to pay back the funds, an execution Court process may be needed.

With regards to those clients that do not have a BG, the options are to wait or sue San Jose on a separate Court case asking for the contract to be reversed.

At the moment we do not recommend to sue San Jose separately to have the contracts reversed because it really has no advantage on your position as a creditor and will mean extra fees and costs to pay. Only if the Court ever decided to proceed with the construction and one was not interested at all on having the house built, then it would be wise to consider reversing the contract and get your money back."


I hope that this is of help.
Tony R17 18

Now that is a surprise. same lawyer as went to lindas house who met with san jose etc. great that that legal advice has been given to barry. he has paid for it he can decide whether to listen to it. I have had different and will listen to this

Joanie666, you are a beast.