-
The law is there to protect off-plan property buyers and their deposits.
-
It’s very short and precise, in black and white
-
If a developer wanted to sell off-plan they had to obey certain rules
-
It’s applicable to Morocco when there is a Spanish developer involved.
-
Developers should have asked their clients to transfer the money to Morocco and NOT to Spain.
-
They breached the law.
-
How can we prove it? – Didn’t I sign my contract with developer x?
-
We must prove to the court that the Maroc side was the Spanish one masquerading as a “Moroccan” developer.
-
How?
-
“A verdict for all verdicts” – What’s this? – We call it a “Matrix” – A sentence confirming all the “masquerading” that’s all.
-
How can you do this? – We’ve got the documents… Took long enough!
-
What happens if we win? – We create a precedent and THEN we’ll put your individual case through.
-
Who pays you at the end of the day? – The “unfortunate” bank – What happened in reality is that developers unconsciously passed the “buck” to their bankers, pity for them, under the law they (the bank) should have blown the whistle and insisted the money went to Morocco. Did the money go to Morocco? – We don’t know but it doesn’t look like it, otherwise…
-
Can I join that “matrix” case that you’re talking about? – If your money went to Spain and not to Morocco, it’s up to you. You don’t have to.
-
Don’t forget… There are TWO cases, one that will give us very good guarantees if we win and there is your individual case.
-
Why don’t I just wait until you win that case and then jump in? – Because it will be more expensive then.
-
And the Moroccan case we are all embarked on?
-
This goes on, business as usual. You will still get regular updates as up to now. This is SEPARATE AND PARALLEL.
-
Again… You don’t have to.
Tag Archives: Recovery
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW (OUR CLAIM)
Second – Receiving the sums advanced by purchasers through a Bank or Savings Bank, which must be deposited in a Special Account, with separation from any other funds belonging to the promoter, which may only contain funds deposited for the construction of dwellings. For the opening of these accounts or deposits the Banking institution or Savings bank, under its responsibility, will demand the guarantee to which the previous condition refers.
(For the law to be applicable)
-
Monies for off-plan house purchased MUST be credited to a Bank account (or Savings Bank). In Spain these are/were called “Cajas de Ahorros”
-
This account MUST be separate from that used for the day to day of the developer.
-
The funds deposited in the special account MUST be used to finance construction.
-
(The interpretation we are pushing forward which is backed by the law): The Bank MUST insist that these funds are spent on construction and only construction)
NOTES TO BACK UP OUR CASE:
-
Did the developer’s Spanish bankers supervise the above?
-
Was, the developer’s Spanish bankers aware that these funds were destined for Morocco where the only way you can register an investment from abroad is by channelling funds through their banking system.
-
Why did the developer in, some cases instructed, Moroccan Real Estate investors to remit funds to a bank outside the country?
-
Was the developer properly advised in Morocco about the nature of their investment laws?
-
Why did Spanish lawyers (who should have known better) transfer their clients funds to the developer’s bank in… Spain.
-
Did the developer know that in order that their buyers could repatriate funds in future the only way to do so is by individually declaring the investment in Morocco?
-
Were any funds transferred by the developer done so in bulk or under individual names? If the former took place, the developer and the client’s lawyers were jeopardising any future prospect to repatriate funds.
TECHNICAL POINT
The case is against individual banks and NOT against the Spanish arm of the operation of the different developers involved. Under the clauses of the law, banks are obliged to reimburse ALL funds channelled through its books plus interest at 6% per annuum.
SUMMARY
-
Law 57/68 was enacted to protect off plan buyers of property in Spain against the risk of the developer failing to deliver the property according to the contract.
-
The law is very short and very precise. It distributes responsibility not only to the developer themselves but to their bank.
-
Any developer wishing to sell off plan, required their client’s deposits to be safeguarded by a bank guarantee or specialised insurance company issued in the buyer’s name.
-
A significant number of Spanish Property Developers expanded their business to Morocco in the late nineties under the umbrella of that country’s second property market push that was sponsored by their government.
-
The marketing of off plan properties in Morocco was directed from Spain itself and conducted by the mainframe Spanish arm of the group. This opens a possible application of 57/68 as a viability.
-
We have obtained all the legal documentation to prove that there is a link between the two companies. Something of an exclusive.
-
Other legal firms have had terrible difficult difficulties in obtaining these documents and had to forego the possibility of applying this law.
-
The proposed procedure has two gradients:
-
A general precedent ruling proving the existence of the link between the Spanish and Moroccan Operations (Matrix Case)
-
Use that precedent to submit individual cases in a second stage.
-
-
All buyers are invited to participate in contributing towards the cost of this master case whether they are NHI clients or not.
-
Upon a successful ruling (will take around a year) the cost of the individual personalised cases will be reduced considerably.
-
We feel that the final hearing will be in under two years.
-
IMPORTANT: This is a totally separate case to the one you may be involved in the Kingdom of Morocco.
LEGAL PROCEDURES
The procedure is divided in two stages:
-
A potential favourable ruling on the link between the S.A.R.L and the S.L (A general matrix ruling)
-
Individual case by case (Each client individually).
MATRIX RULING:
What is a Matrix Ruling: (In this particular case) It is a case won by the accusers at the first instance court that will create a precedent, Law 57/68 is one of those pieces of Spanish legislation that admits precedent. Spain is a civil law country and not Common Law, as for example the UK. However, in some instances the civil code admits precedent which in Spanish is called “jurisdicción” (jurisdiction has a different meaning under, say, English Law). What are we trying to achieve with this? – Very simply… We are trying to prove that the S.A.R.L (Morocco) and the S.L (Spain) companies are one and the same. If that ruling comes through, it will be taken into consideration by a judge when the time comes to take to court each individual case. According to my legal sources, if this is established there is an 80 to 90 percent chance that the defendant will win each individual case. The Matrix case will take less than a year to come through.
INDIVIDUAL CASES:
Armed with precedent, each individual client will take “their” bank to court in order to claim the deposits originally transferred and to win a compensation package. This is the second stage.
DOCUMENARY REQUIREMENTS:
For the Matrix Case there is no need to send any personal documents, we will only require a signed mandate form and a Power of Attorney. Both documents we will prepare.
For each individual case: If you are an existing NHI client, we will have all the information on how you paid the developer. Eventually, you will need to notarise and apostille the following documents:
-
Sales Contract (French Version Only)
-
Proof of Payment (Very Important)
-
Power of Attorney (Spanish Version Only)
-
Copies of Passports (No need to Notarise nor Apostille this)
saidiarecov 