SARC June Update/Vote

Tony

By Almundena saying they had in excess of 50% of the vote saying yes, does this mean that they have achieved the necessary percentage to proceed?

Mark

Hi Glendale,

They needed to achieve over 50% to have the proposal accepted & not be liquidated. They have achieved a vote in excess of 50% accepting the proposal and have a mandate from the creditos to proceed.

All the best

Tony

Tony

Sorry to be dim, so does this mean that they can now proceed, ie start to build etc, or now go back to the various backers and say we have 50% of the creditors vote, can we now sort out the financial backing etc to start building.

mark

Hi Mark,

it means that they can commence with following the buisness plan that they put to us all to consider.  We will be speaking to HdT over the next few days asking about what happens next etc, but bottome line is that they intend to build SADM and now have a mandate to get on with it.  They have, with the support of purchasers, taken the first step towards getting us out of this mess.

All the best

Tony R17 18

what a joke.

how can anyone take a load of money off you ,,,tell you they will give you less than 60%, back if any ,in 5 years and then expect a big cheer because they survived.

this is wrong. wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

they didnt honor the BG and acted against the law , SO WHY ARE THEY NOT ALL IN JAIL. ITS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE

And now they won't have to account for where all our deposits have gone. Who wants a house built on foundations that have been open to the elements for more than 2 years?

So how long until we all get the BG that we should have all had by now? Tony I assume this would now be top of your agenda

As SARC have got the outcome wanted. How will SARC ensure everyone is protected? 

How could a bank give you a guarantee if it doesn't have your deposit?

Hi All,

Thats if what Tony is saying turns out to be true remember this information comes from Almudena who would not know the truth if it bit her on the backside.

Let's all wait till we hear from our solicitors with facts not lies lies and misinformation.

Hi All,

I am not going to comment, the vote says it all.

Tony R17 18

The  vote says all of what? as I said previous this information comes from a proven liar who is from a DISHONOURABLE DISREPUTABLE  family  and a DISHONEST COMPANY.

But of course you have to make some kind of comment to keep the spin at the top of the thread.

its bollocks the proposal is not feesable!! Now whats going to happen all the people that voted no are going to sue for their money back which is rightfully theirs HDT have not delivered as per the contract ! they have not got a leg to stand on, They are liars and theives and dont deserve one more penny from anyone. They could not run a piss up in a brewery. We were all conned from our hard earned cash.

Tony, where are the BG? if they are allowed to trade on then they should issue us all with bank guarantees as per the law. What they should have done at the start.

Those who voted for the proposal have voted for 5 more years of misery. One only has to remember all the false promises first time round, pushed back completion dates, lack of information and then the bombshell of the concurso!

I will be sueing them for the return of my full deposit and costs as others have stated. How are they going to continue SADM if we sue? It doesn`t make an attractive investment to Banks if disgruntled buyers are to sue for the return of their deposits and there aren`t as many buyers as HdT have claimed. Cheers Joanniemac

With reference to SARC newsletter JULY 08:

Almudena explained:

( I quote)

" g. The continuation of the purchase contract with a new completion date and bank guarantee as the court will require it."

Is this correct?

I've had a brief email from my Solicitor who says that the votes have to be validated by the courts - so at the present time there is no official news.

Maybe Almudena is being slightly previous in her postings to Tony

It would be interesting to know how many of 51+% have voted yes to get their house and how many have voted yes to get their money back.

I voted No and no longer want a house at SADM.  The people are crooks  If the 50-60% want their house let them pay and suffer further.  All the others like me who say no should have a full refund.

I am not in bteach of contract but I have a signed contract from the company that says if my property was not built in 2 years (with 3 months leaway), I would recieve my deposit back plus interest.  So give me my money back.

The solicitor also says THEY  (San Jose etc) canceled my BG which is illegal.  Have to find the truth about that later.

They are in breach and I do not want to spend my life waiting on the scum. So I presum I can now cancel my contract as I have no house and they can sell it on to the next mug.

If the comments on taking action against HDT are based on some facts. Such as sue the company. Would you please provide me with details on how and what action you intend to take. Maybe a group action now is the best way. Thoughts?????

I would be very interested in taking this action but need to work with others to proceed.

If some as a group have helped push the vote over 50% then maybe as a group we can do the same to get our money back.

Charles.

Owner of a foundation and broken dreams.

Hi to the negative posters ,

I suggest that you calm down, wait for the verrified count & stop thinking of legal actions that have no chance of success.

The whole point of the vote & the outcome, is it draws a line on the past, the same as in the UK . If HdT had been liquidated despite the very peculiar advice some of you have had, you would not of got all your money back , if anything. A lot of purchasers knew this & voted accordingly.

I WANT A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR ALL.

Tony R17 18

This message was last edited by TonyMal on 03/06/2010.