Antonio Flores’ Blog

Convicted conman John Doust was right in one thing, when reflecting on the reasons why he had become exposed as one of the longest-serving crooks around: “internet is a terrible thing”. It definetely proved awful to him, to the point that even a  relative of his found out about his latest scam via the cyberspace!

For Nykredit and Sydbank, Internet can administer the coup de grace for equity release contracts, signed with otherwise happy British unencumbered property owners, that invariably failed to achieve what was intended from them, leaving the supposedly happy beneficiaries in dire financial ruin.

It is not known how many people actually signed with them but what is clear is that Nykredit and Sydbank, in the process of recruiting their clients and getting them to sign up for their losing financial product, broke every existing law, regulation, norm, code of conduct, you name it. So since my previous post was boring enough with all the laws that these guys infringed, I will just outline 2 decisive aspects of their actions that would define their activities:

• They arrived in Spain through the back door: if the first stop for any entity or person who wishes to legally and properly advise on financial products or services in Spain is the CNMV (Spanish regulator), then the duet Nykredit/Sydbank must have swam in from Mediterranean to reach the Costa del Sol, or perhaps used the vehicle of the photo. If you go to the CNMV website you will not find trace of any of the two Danish banks…

• They arrived in Spain through the back door and actually knew they were doing so. You see, the WayBackMachine.org site tells us that back in 2007, Nykredit was selling equity release in Spain but were aware that they could not do so, and to warn people they actually posted a warning on their website that read:

“Please note that due to legal barriers, we currently only offer mortgage loans in France and Spain to Scandinavian retail customers.”

Because once you get into the habit of breaking the laws and other inconvenient regulations implemented by a different country , you end up doing the same with self-imposed prohibitions like the one above. Nykredit and Sydbank were just never allowed/authorised/cleared/legally entitled offer or sell equity release programmes to anyone in Spain, whether Scandis or not.

Shortly after realizing  how wrong they were, they removed the equity release page…

And my clients, all over 60, British, and retired, have had to rent their property, start working (a lady in particular is now cleaning other people’s homes) and suffer untold levels of stress since having the misfortune of crossing paths with the chap on the picture…

Antonio Flores Litigation, Mortgages, Property, Scams equi, equity release, Nykredit, Sydbank

The clients thought they’d be soon grinning from ear to ear once their application was approved, but the lenders knew that this ability to grin could be quickly challenged by grimace…

The equity release fiasco threatens to not only leave hundreds of deceived investors destitute, but also physically eliminate a few after enduring years of unbearable stress when faced with a prospect of financial ruin when retirement has been reached.

“I should have known better” is the statement I come across the most, and I fully agree but let me qualify this statement to add that yes, but when are told the truth and not lied to in such a vile manner as the Rothschild, Danske Bank, Sydbank/Nykredit, Landsbanki, Jyske etc., assisted by their cronies, did to pensioners, mostly from the United Kingdom. Interestingly, all these banks were paying commissions to unregistered and unregulated pseudo-financial professionals to bring in the punters on to the dock…

But enough of this now, let’s get with the positive side, because recent Supreme Court case law in Spain seems can make these contracts not worth the paper they are written on, and consequently, courts of first instance are now ruling in favour of consumers of financial products that were not only ill-advised, but also, ill-chosen, given that these products could have never been suitable for them due to their profile.

The case in particular refers to, again, hundreds of investors who signed what they thought were safe deposit contracts, and ended up losing almost all the capital. It was won by the creditors in the first instance, appealed by Caja Rural but thrown out and finally went to the Supreme Court, who could not be more in agreement with their subordinate peers. The latter ruling consists of 45 pages that I will try to condense, as it mainly refers to a number of legal arguments of difficult rebuttal. The excerpt below can accurately summarize, in a nutshell, what happened:

This product was sold and contracted in an indiscriminate manner by the branch offices of Caja Rural in the Valencia area, by the branch manager directly and without explaining the client the particulars of the product, inasmuch as it was not a typical fixed deposit but something different where they could lose part or all of the capital, especially considering that they were pensioners, agriculture-based workers, builders, etc. with a conservative mentality, averse to assuming risks and that had never invested in sophisticated financial products. Also, most of the customers would have not read the contracts as they would trust what was told to them, aloof of any damaging potential consequence but also, unable to discern the risk associated with this investment as the contract was not possible to understand unless they were financial-savvy.

The Supreme Court articulates the ruling on the basis of parameters that were breached by the bank:

1. Parameters based on financial services’ applicable legislation, which is deemed to have been breached.
2. Parameters based on civil and consumer protection laws, in particular, in respect of lack of consent of the client due to error, impregnated with negligence, during the formation of the contract, and breaches of consumer protections legislation referring to clarity, transparency and simplicity of contracts.

Although not part of this court ruling nor mentioned in it, and to get it out of the way, I confirm that all references are made to applicable Spanish law, and not Luxembourg, Swiss, Icelandic or any other convenience laws, as these banks were pretending to, according to article 90 of the Consumer Protection and other Complementary Laws Act 1/2007, which stipulates that any of the following will be deemed null and void:

1. Submission to Courts or Judges different to that of the address of the consumer, the place where the obligation is to be carried out or where the property is located.
2. Submission of the contract to a foreign law in relation to where the consumer undertakes to contract or where the business carries out its activity directed to promoting contracts of equal or similar nature.

The applicable law objection is easily dumped by on wayside, but requires explanation to avoid it being used to interfere in the more important nullity of the whole contract. By the way, all the above banks are susceptible of being fined for inserting clauses declared abusive, and consequently, null and void.

Theory of the “Customer Profile” or “Client Profile”

Considering that most of these contracts were signed prior to the 21st of November 2007, when the Mifid Directive was introduced in Spain, the Courts were guided by the Ley del Mercado de Valores y Código General de Conducta de los Mercados de Valores, which is the Stock Exchange Act and General Code of Conduct of the Financial Markets, in respect of the information to be supplied to consumers, and Royal Decree 629/1993 in respect to norms of conduct in the financial markets and obligatory registries.

The above legislation has developed what is known as the theory of the customer, or client profile. Article 79 of the Stock Exchange Act stipulated, prior to further amendments (this article was amended 3 times), among other points, that credit entities that act in the financial markets will have to observe the following principles and requirements:

1. Behave diligently and transparency in the interest of their clients and in the defense of the integrity of the market.
2. Develop an ordered and prudent administration, looking after the interests of the clients as it they were their own
3. Ensure that the clients had all the required information.

Act 47/2007 introduced article 78, differentiating between a “retail” client, as opposed to a “professional” client:

[..] including other banks or financial entities, or those of whom experience, knowledge or qualifications in the financial markets is presumed, to the extent of being able to undertake to make their own decisions over financial products and value their risks correctly. Business people will be deemed professional clients provided they have assets of at least 20m euros, of their annual return is over 40m (hardly a pensioner). Any client may request that he is considered a professional client, but the acceptance of this application will be made subject to the company assessment over the experience and knowledge of the client in relation to the operations or services he requests, ensuring that he is able to make his own decisions and can value the risks correctly.

When carrying out the assessment as above, the financial service provider will have to ensure that at least 2 of the following are met:

1. That the client has transacted a significant volume of operations in the financial markets, with a frequency (average) or at least 10 per quarter during the last 4 quarters.
2. That the sums invested exceed €500,000
3. That the client has held a professional job, for at least 1 year, in the financial sector that would require knowledge of the operations or services granted.

Any other client that does not come under the above will be deemed a retail client.

Realistically, how the hell were the “equity release” providers meant to have applied the above complex legislation if the agents used by them were not qualified in the European Union to provide this advice, were not regulated in Spain to provide this advice, and had little, or not knowledge, of Spanish language, without mentioning that, as a result of these grave, could have never understood the extent of these protection laws?

Furthermore, Annex to Royal Decree 629/1993 stipulates that all operators in the financial services markets must act, when exercising their activities, with impartiality and without placing their interest before those of their clients. Article 4 and 5 of this annex are particularly important, when construing the doctrine or theory of the investor profile:

Article 4:

The entities will request from their clients the necessary information for its correct identification, as well as information on its financial situation, financial experience, investment experience and objectives of the investment when the latter is relevant for the services that are to be provided.

Article 5:

1. The entities will offer and provide to their clients any information they have that may be relevant to adopting investment decisions, and will dedicate time and attention to ensure that the best product or service is obtained, in relation to the objectives pursued.
2. The entities shall have available any information systems updated so that the relevant information is provided correctly.
3. The information provided to the clients must be clear, correct, precise, sufficient and delivered on time to avoid an incorrect interpretation, stressing the risks undertaken on each operation, in particular high risk financial products, so that the client is in knowledge of the precise effects the operation entails. Any prediction must be correctly justified and expanded with the necessary explanations to avoid misunderstandings.

And so we reach article 7, that clearly stipulates a prohibition openly flaunted, still today, by entities, in particular Rothschild:

1. Entities will refuse any operation from non-authorized intermediaries, as well as those in which they have knowledge that the relevant legislation applicable to the former may be infringed.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Caja Rural, Danske Bank, equity release, Jyske Bank, Landsbanki, Rothschild, Sydbank/Nykredit

I make no disguise that, professionally, I am closely connected to property, therefore this post, to many, will have limited significance due to obvious bias. If I was however to collate my experiences over the years, good and bad, when dealing in real estate in Spain, and I compare them with how transactions are conducted these days, I would necessarily conclude that it is now safer than ever to invest in property in Spain.

The crisis has operated like an unstoppable tsunami that has swept right across the property market, sucking in its wake dodgy agents, opportunistic developers, corrupt town hall officials, crooked mortgage brokers (like the one that conned Banesto out of a few millions) and a handful of funny lawyers. And with them, a myriad of very questionable anti-property purchaser practices that had dangerously became close to standard, in spite of almost everyone living, directly or indirectly, on these bona fide consumers or investors. It may be convenient to enumerate these unethical antics, by trades, to keep things in perspective.

We must remember that:

1. Never again should anyone pay any monies to a developer unless a bank guarantee or an insurance policy is available…, obvious isn’t it? More the point is that, realistically, insurance companies will never touch advance off-plan property payments and banks are likely to request unthinkable amounts of collateral. The immediate consequence of this is that only the very cash-strong will be able to develop and this is just good news.
2. Never again should anyone pay monies to a developer who:
   
   1. Does not own the land (Citrus Europe Ltd.)
   2. Does not have a building license (Aifos)
   3. Cannot give bank guarantees (not enough space in this post to name them),
   4. Uses the deposits for a Murcia development to run a complex in Venezuela (Proyectos Antele S.L.)
   5. Uses a bent-as-hell agent as a deposit-collector who then ends up keeping them (Grupo Mirador and Palmera Properties/Gotardo)
   6. Runs away with the portion of the purchase price, earmarked for cancelling the loan on your property, to Germany (Abacon Delta S.L.)
   7. Sells a half built complex to a third party and does not refund (Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and Ready2Invest )
   8. Takes 60 deposits for an Almeria development to a UK company and then dissolves it (again, Citrus Europe Ltd.)
   9. Or all of those together plus sets up a Ponzi scheme, is known to have never built one property in his entire life in spite of claiming, at a fastouos ceremony, to have erected no less than 6,000 in the Costal del Sol, even persuading gullible Prince Albert to believe such bullshit!  (Sun Golf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A. or Mr. Ricardo Miranda Miret).
3. Never again will developers bully buyers as they were used to doing, as for example La Reserva de Marbella S.A. were experts at. I always wondered why was it that when you bought an apartment for €200,000 you were almost expecting to be treated like s**t, but if you went for a meal you were the king if you tipped handsomely…
4. Never again will developers make you sign a private purchase contract for 70% of its real price, the balance of 30% to be paid to a Switzerland account, in advance, undocumented and, of course, never to be reflected on the private purchase sale deeds…(any ideas?? )
5. Very unlikely (never say never) will a Socialist/Communist Government, regional or otherwise, allow licenses to be granted on thousands of properties only to later, due to political opportunism and a spate of much publicized corrupt Town Hall officials arrests (which I agree with but without the cameras), instigate the revocation of almost all of these licenses, promote demolitions, warn of impending heavy fines on everyone, including the bona fide owners and, in sum, scare the hell out of thousands of those owners plus an undetermined number of potential investors in Spain.

With all we know now in respect of the degrees of criminality so many property developers ran into, an off-plan property industry that is almost non-existent (good old Taylor-Wimpey seems the only one around) and the property-associated corruption almost disappearing, the very few developers that are still around will no doubt jump through hoops to ensure that only la creme de la creme will be sold, at the right price of course!

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Abacon Delta S.L., Aifos, Citrus Europe Ltd, Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., Grupo Mirador, Jesus Gotardo, La Reserva de Marbella S.A., Palmera Properties, Proyectos Antele S.L., Ready2Invest, Ricardo Miranda Miret, Sungolf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A, Taylor-Wimpey

The SunGolf and Ocean View Property scandal has now hit the headlines, just where it should have been long time ago. But whether this is portrayed as a struggle between two powerful property developing lobbies fighting to control the Dominican turf (Ricardo Miranda on the one side and Sanchez & Lietor on the other), as some wish to put it, the reality is that still over 120 British and Irish property investors are out of pocket through no fault of their own, and no one takes one bit of responsibility.

Mr. Miranda accuses me of perverting the truth in pursuit of media relevance and yet, he does not address the questions raised many times over.

Mr. Miranda accuses me of perverting the truth in pursuit of media relevance and yet, he does not address the questions raised many times over.

It is my understanding that both the President of the Dominican Republic and Monaco Prince Albert, lending their presence to endorse a ghost development, should be held responsible for losses sustained by investors who, having relied on their international prestige when choosing to invest in Punta Perla, are now out of pocket. Their irresponsibility when carrying out appropriate due diligence on the records of Mr. Miranda who, as been published, claimed to have successfully built thousands of properties on the Costa Del Sol (which is false), has to be attributable to a mix of poor advice and, perhaps, succulent incentives.

Some headlines

• Dominican President, Monaco Prince named in Spain “macrofraud” case - 18 February 2011 – Dominican Today
• Northern Ireland home buyers sue British real estate agents for Estepona fraud – 17 February 2011 – Typically Spanish

• Británicos afectados por una macroestafa inmobiliaria presentan una querella – 17 February 2011 – El Mundo
• Un centenar de familias británicas denuncian a un promotor por una supuesta estafa inmobiliaria – 17 February 2011 – Diario Sur
• Casi cien familias extranjeras se querellan contra una promotora marbellí por una estafa de 4,5 millones - 17 February 2011 – Europa Press
• Palacio niega tribunal España citara a  Leonel como testigo  litis – 17 February 2011 – El Nacional (Dominican Republic)
• Ricardo Miranda dice acusación busca crear escándalo mediático – 17 February 2011 – Diario Digital (Dominican Republic)
• Unos 70 extranjeros acusan a un promotor de estafa en Estepona - 18 February 2011 – La opinion de Malaga
• Un juez investiga una estafa masiva a británicos en la Costa del Sol - 18 February 2011 -El Pais

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Estepona Beach and Country Club, Ocean View Properties, OVP, Punta Perla, Ricardo Miranda Miret, Sungolf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A

Two posts ago, in my post titled Spanish Property Auction Horror, I mentioned a very innovative court ruling that allowed someone in Navarra to walk away from their property (a process called in Spanish Dacion en Pago) without the risk of going through what the Wiltshire couple mentioned in the post went through.

Some notes on the ruling (PDF, Spanish) so that an opinion can be formed on it:

• A bank forecloses and repossesses, given that bidders (that species in extreme danger of extinction) fail yet again to turn up. The value given to the property, on application of the mortgage foreclosure archaic provisions, is of approximately €20,000 under the debt.
• The Court of First Instance rules that it would not be equitable and fair for the bank to charge this amount and reject enforcing collection of this debt.
• The Court of Appeal, deciding on the legal challenge brought by the bank, does not consider its entitlement to claim a further €20,000, after the property has been repossessed, to be an “abuse of discretion“, from a formal point of view, for the law has been applied in its own terms.
• The court does consider, conversely, that since the bank allocated a value of €75,000 to the property when the mortgage deeds were signed, this specific aspect of the initial agreement cannot be glossed over and requires further understanding.
• The court goes on to say that, when appealing the initial ruling, the bank conveys a morally  alarming reflection, it being the known fact that the property is now worth far less due to adverse economic circumstances, adding that such situation is not attributable to the property ex-owner but to international economic crisis reasons, an opinion the Court says is shared by the Spanish Prime Minister as well as Mr. Barack Obama.
• As a consequence of this, continues the Court of Appeal, the bank, being an integral part of the economic system and therefore not aloof from the above considerations, is partly responsible for their -irresponsible- role in the most savage crisis since 1929.
• The court then invokes that laws have to be interpreted according to the reality of the time when they are to be applied (article 3 of the Spanish Civil Code) and, to the surprise of many, and in spite of repeating that it would it not be abuse of discretion to enforce the €20,000, reckons it morally reproachable for the bank to pursue borrowers for a fictitious sum when, at the time of granting the loan, the value of the property was more than enough to cover the loan and that this situation has not been occasioned through any fault of their own, nor that of the bank, although the reality is that the latter is a protagonist of the collapsed financial system. It also then adds that bank’s reason for pursuing the borrowers (economic crisis) is a highly sensitive issue that have made a lot of people “hot under the collar”.
• Finally, the court rules that in respect of the reduced value of the repossessed property, for which the bank showed no documentary evidence, the formal adjudication (repossession) of it, given its initial bank-accepted initial valuation of €75,000, is enough to cancel the debt.

So what have the reactions been to this?

• Spanish Consumers Associations are understandably over the moon and hail the ruling as very brave. FACUA, one of them, has its reservations as it, they say, the Government that now needs to make a legal move to change the laws. If not, they claim, they will lobby for the laws to be reviewed to accommodate this very consumer-friendly ruling. Finally, they insist that a law-change is necessary to break once and for all with the harrowing consequences that the price-inflating conspiracy plotted by banks and valuation companies has had on consumers.
• Spanish Bankers Association are understandably mad at it as they claim, if it becomes rule then lending markets may go through turmoil, lenders will increase interest rates, investors would not trust a system where contracts can be broken (yeah, tell this to the victims of the  Spanish off-plan property fiasco, or are they not investors?) and some consideration or other. They encourage banks to fight this new trend.
• Someone called Moody’s claims that it is an isolated case and that it should not be made rule, given that it would encourage borrowers to default when they feel that the property is in negative equity. It also says that it goes against Spanish laws and warns that, if it sets a precedent, they will have to put the Spanish mortgage market under scrutiny and perhaps, have it revised.

Antonio Flores Mortgages, Property bank repossessions, dacion en pago, foreclosure in spain, handing back the keys

It could have not gone better: in the space of 24 hours we had managed to meet up with members of the Northern Ireland Executive, deliver the proposal (PDF), be interviewed by the BBC and the Ulster TV, and even catch a flight back on time, not before downing a couple of good local beers.

If the Northern Ireland Government decides to adhere to our proposal, which they will carefully consider in the next couple of months, it will be the first time –that we know of- that an autonomous government supports, in visible way (rather than with well-intentioned words devoid of any practical consequence), a large group of consumers defrauded in a failed property investment scheme.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property Ocean View Properties, OVP, Ricardo Miranda Miret, Sungolf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A

As tempting as it may look, “handing over the keys” to the bank (dacion en pago in Spanish) , without pre-arranging this via a Notary Public and disappearing, has to be done with care, for being pretty dangerous, unless you have the right figures. Or you happen to have been lucky enough to have been judged by the court in Navarra that has ruled that the bank is not entitled to not accept the “handing” in of the keys, in a very relevant decision.

This ruling (to be discussed on a next post), however important it may seem, does not take away the horror of our mortgage foreclosure legislation. The reason for this happening is that Spanish provisions in respect of foreclosures, unlike other countries, stipulate that auctions will be valid so long as the minimum bid is over 50% of the auction start price (the latter value generally being pre-agreed when signing the mortgage deeds and equivalent to the valuation), irrespective of the current outstanding debt with the bank.

I have taken a real-life example, on a property at Jardines de Casares, and to understand this have attached the following:

• The print out we got from the bank after the property had been repossessed, showing the existing debt and the value the property achieved at auction.
• The value given to the property, in 2006, for auction purposes (coincidental with the valuation).

So we have then that property was valued, for auction purposes, at €350,700 (the auction start price), the outstanding mortgage was of €243,217 and, as usual, nobody of interest turned up (only retired law-lovers and the occasional passers-by) .

The auction kicked off with only the bank being present -and a few curious skinned time wasters -rapidly skipped the 70% ASP mark and ended being repossessed for 50% of this value. And the “summarily executed” debtor ended up, as a consequence of these unfair laws, without a property but still owing €67,867 plus a further €100,000 approximately in legal costs and arrears interest (19% p.a.).

In the above case-study, from the debtors perspective (which is the one we are interested in here), the following scenarios and consequences were possible (although only scenario 5 was probable, considering the value of the property and the area):

1. Bidder(s) turn up and bid over the debt (being over 70% of the start price): we walk away with no property but no debt and probably some spare cash.
2. Bidder(s) turn up and match the bank debt (between 50% and 70% of the start price): we walk away with no property but no debt. In this case we would have the right, within 10 days, to bring a third party to improve the bid.
3. No bidder(s) turn up but the bank repossesses for the debt value: we walk away with no property but, luckily, no debt.
4. No bidder(s) turn up and bank repossess at over 70% of the start price but under the debt: we walk away with no property and the horrific auction negative-equity.
5. As point 4 but bank repossess at under 70% of the ASP (sometimes at 50% of start price or the value of the debt): we walk away with no property and a larger auction negative-equity, worst than 4. However, albeit illusory, we still have 10 days to bring a third party to improve the bid, up to 70% or the debt.

Under the current Spanish foreclosure system, if we find ourselves in the scenarios of points 4 and 5 we can end up being chased for the difference (which is fictitious although becomes very real once the Judge’s gavel goes down!), calculated by subtracting what article 670 of the LEC (civil Procedural Act) allows the bank to keep the property for, from what we owe them, just as the couple from Wiltshire are experiencing, to their sorrow.

And so, what options do we have? Not many, but I can propose two:

• Stop paying your mortgage and try to convince the bank that it is silly to go to Court and clever to take the property back, because a) you have no property in Europe and b) you are going to live in Peru for the rest of your life (don’t be shy here, concoct a proper story, set them up!)
• If you are not in any of those scenarios, or are too honest to lie, find a friend who will be happy to put in a dummy bid to push the auction value up to the debt you have with the bank. Your friend will have to put down, as a deposit, 30% of the starting price (just over €100,000), and needs to get the bank to make a first bid equivalent to the debt. This will free you from the negative equity, and your friend will be free to get the deposit back, job done satisfactorily! Careful though: the bank’s representative may push his bid short of the debt, making your friend put a higher bid only for the bank to then…pull out. Now your friend has a problem!

And bear in mind the following:

• Most auctions end up with the bank repossessing as they will not -yet- settle for anything less than the outstanding mortgage capital (even if it is way over the market value). We should see a change happening towards mid-2011, as the Bank of Spain has already warned.
• Bidders currently discard 95% of the auctions happening in Spanish courts.

Antonio Flores Mortgages, Property bank repossessions, dacion en pago, foreclosure in spain, spanish property auctions

The Palmera Properties story has all the ingredients of the ordinary run-of-the-mill property investment bungle:  dishonest real estate agents,  contractual misrepresentation, down payments never paid down (kept by agents), nor refunded (to our clients, that we know), unbuilt properties, invalid contract reselling, sluggish courts, bumbling judges unkeen on seeing instances of criminal misappropriation when even a child would see them, frustrated lawyers and very angry buyers.

The difference perhaps with other similar rip-off stories is that Palmera Properties, after leaving around one hundred or so clients with no money and no property, still operates, under the same trading name, although they will not admit to it unless, that is, you pretend to be a willing buyer from Scotland and awake their greed.

Today’s story is about an undercover operation triggered by a client who, having been awarded an unenforceable favourable ruling by a civil court in Torremolinos (due to clever concealment of assets), discovers that Palmera Properties, a now one-man band led by Jesus Gotardo, is still operating.

From the new Palmera Properties Website, Mr. Gotardo has resumed his activities, the same ones that merited an arrest warrant being issued by a Madrid Court (he is currently on bail).

Such cheek could not go uninvestigated, and so we commissioned a Brighton-born journalist with a very plausible rhotic Scottish inflection, who, purporting to be a property investor, met up with two agents sent by Gotardo, a meeting arranged through the above website by a mysterious “Ruben”. And what we found is that Mr. Gotardo, of all people, is again dealing in real estate, notwithstanding his history of calamity, his huge indebtedness to creditors (five from our practise among them) and his firm intention of not repairing the immense damage caused to his ex-clients other than by offering…another property.

Sharp Gotardo smelt a rat an hour after the meeting finished and was quick to send “Mark Biggs”, “the journalist from Inverness”, a threatening email, which I quote below:

Dear Mr Biggs

I am very surprised of the report we got from your meeting. it seems that you hide the fact that you are an existing client. We are here to help with any issues. Palmera as a company is facing a bankrupcy procedure. We just acted as agents and we dont hold any deposits as these were paid to developers. We can help if you honestly let us know your situation without making our friend to loose time.

Given the circustances and based on previous experiences we have no other option than keep record of your false intentioned emails and testimony of our friend independent company and put these events under the knowledge of spanish authorities to avoid any threat or errors in your behave in this situation ( last people tried these tactics spend 2 weeks in spanish prison i can send you sentence if you want me to)

Should you require our help please be honest an we will help as we can. What is the development you paid for and we will give you full report.

Palmera is not based anymore in malaga  and we are just assisting our people with some relations of friend compamies ready to help. To abuse of these good will factor will only generate problems and lack of help for your situation.

thanks

Ruben

I wonder if that Spanish prison he is talking about is the same that gladly opened the doors to him… But as the meeting is the central theme of this post and a picture is worth a thousand words, we decided that we had to film the meeting, which you can now watch.

Video

Start: Lady says that Gotardo is not her boss, that he´s just someone (contact) who sends the client. When asked if he is an agent, after thinking up a response during 3 seconds, she says that she thinks so…
Verónica is who receives emails from Gotardo (Ruben for us).

0’52”: Lady says that Gotardo and “Ruben” are friends of the owner of her company. She confirms that Palmera Properties makes money out of this and that some commission would go to Palmera Properties. Young Verónica, on the contrary, says that Palmera is just a contact by “friendship”. Lady again confirms that it is a split commission deal because Gotardo is who brings the client. Veronica says Gotardo could not come as he had another meeting. She then adds that he has nothing to do with this.

1’58”: Palmera guys are friends of the President of Mangle. When asked again about the commission, Veronica smiles, doubts for a second, and says that she thinks so, but that she is not sure.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Jesus Gotardo, Palmera Properties

Banks must have done something really dodgy in respect of these Russian-roulette swap contracts, because, besides the deluge of rulings tagging these instruments as the epitome of banking misrepresentation, one particular court in Madrid has now issued, at the request of the Banking Services’ Consumers Association, a search warrant in the central offices of the BBVA bank, the second biggest in Spain.

The execution of the measure was set for the 21st of December, since the bank was refusing to provide the court with a list of consumers that had signed up to the protection provided by these contracts against interest rate fluctuations, thinking this was the case. To avoid further embarrassment, BBVA decided to hand in the paperwork a few days before the deadline.

Statistically, I would say that 3 courts out of 4 are now rendering these contracts as null and void since they were sold as an insurance cover in the event of heavy interest rate fluctuations (upwards obviously) but craftily concealed the scenario where, if they went down, the bank would be cashing in. Courts understand that these contracts hid a complex financial-speculative derivative product that has caused thousands to lose millions in favour of banks.

Fortunately for lawyers acting on behalf of victims of this misrepresentation, each bank has a standard contract that applies throughout Spain, so, once a ruling is reached by a Court in respect of say, Banco Sabadell or Caja España, it is very difficult for a claim brought under the same grounds to be rejected by a different court (but may happen, after all, it’s the judiciary!).

So what’s the solution to this then? Well, if you ask me with my lawyer’s hat on, I’d say instruct me! But if you want to give it a go yourself, and give me a miss, this is what I propose:

1. Ask your bank for a copy of the swap contract, in case you don’t have it.
2. Go to the extraordinary website of the Asuapedefin and Apymifid associations and try to find the name of your bank among the 100 or so favourable rulings posted there (the column on the right of the screen). If you can find it, print it.
3. Get a letter out to the bank advising them that, due to the swap contract’s absolute nullity, you will not accept any more withdrawals from your bank account.  I have typed up a letter (see below) that will help you address these issues, and which you will need sent via official channels, i.e. “burofax”, irrespective of whether you hand-deliver or fax it, to ensure acknowledgement of content and recorded delivery, for litigation purposes.
4. If you can personally go to the branch to deliver the letter, do it. If you have found a copy of a ruling against your bank, don’t forget to enclose it.
5. The following can happen once they get the letter:
   1. that they bin it (very likely),
   2. that they make you an offer or settlement, which would normally come in a roundabout way so that you don’t notice that what they’re really after is to sting you once again (likely),
   3. or that they accept tearing up the contract and reimbursing you the sums you have lost so far (very unlikely).
6. If they offer you an offer or settlement, analise it carefully. At this point you need to understand one thing: a derivative contract is an agreement that is known, to financiers, as a “zero-sum game”. This means that one party’s loss is equal to its counterparty’s gain and therefore, the only way for you to win is that the bank loses, and vice versa. So when negotiating, do keep this in mind.
7. If you get really tired of trying to get an answer from the financial entity, then your best bet is to hire legal representation and go to court. This will allow you to get on with your life and with more productive matters.

Documents

• Swap Cancellation Letter to Bank Template (PDf – 121Kb)

Antonio Flores Litigation, Mortgages, Property abusive mortgage clauses, Banco Sabadell, BBVA, Caja España, mortgage clip, spanish swap, Swap Clause

Reading the Times yesterday, I spotted a funny short article written by David Robertson and Deborah Haynes about the British Army’s SA-80 assault rifle. According to the paper, it has been upgraded several times but its long history of problems has led the military to christen it “the civil servant”, because it does not work and cannot be fired.

This quote came to mind when being asked for a second opinion in respect of the case of Urbanizadora Costa Palatinum/Proyectos Antele, another failed project by a developer which I can group with many others that dot the costas and which I dub the “civil swindlers”, because they get paid from you to do something, they do nothing, and there is little prospect of realistically getting any funds back, since they have no equity on their assets and no interest whatsoever in refunding, even though the funds should be in some bank account (with Proyectos Antele, in Venezuela it would appear).

As 30 or so purchasers are being dragged around civil courts pointlessly (for this developer now says he has none of the monies), and considering that nothing has been built on a plot they already owned prior to exchanging contracts, as part of my legal inquest into the death of the development, I would like to ask the developers one straight question: where is the dosh matey?
To not make this post too long, I will quote some examples why Spanish top judges are in disagreement of the activities carried out by developers who do just that (i.e. take money, not build, spend money elsewhere and blame the market) and who are upgraded, from the term “civil swindlers”, to a more adequate “criminal misapropriators”.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams bank guarantees, Bank Guarantees in Spain, litigation against spanish developers, Ocean View Properties, Ricardo Miranda, spanish developers