Adelaide Development

[Shape]

It's really interesting to read the comments from the people here on the forum.
I do have some experience with South Pacific and know some about the situation of their developments.

We have brought South Pacific in front of the court related to an investment. Yes, we won in court. The insolvency of the SP development gave us however some new challenges.

I read on this forum that SP might restart construction of some developments even if they are in a insolvency process. This will not happen. From a legal point of view, even if South Pacific may intend to resume construction works, at the present time there is no possibility for South Pacific or anyone else to propose such an action. The law stipulates that the steps in the insolvency proceedings have to be carried in a certain order, so SP can't do anything when the insolvency proceedings have started.

I do have some free advices for you all, and I would like to say that I don't care whether any of you believe in what I am writing:

1. Don't listen to anyone that have had relations to MRI. MRI and their representatives are incompetent. If you have done transactions with them you might get problems with romanian tax authorities. We have had our share of problems, so I know from our experience.
I understand Nicola is a former MRI-connection, so my advice, is to not listen and trust what she say.

2. Don't choose lawyer because he or she is cheapest. If you should have any hope for a good solutions on your problems, you need a good lawyer. My advice is to go for a reputable local lawyer. I know, because we have used a bigger law firm with very good lawyers, and they have won all their disputes with SP in front of the court.

3. Don't believe South Pacific in all they say. Our experience is that they show no respect for a written agreement unless it's in their interest. I don't consider South Pacific to be reputable and serious company / group, and I would think twice before making investments with them again.

Some good points here. South Pacific, like any developer, will be putting its business interests first and the recent voluntary insolvency of the Adelaide development is part of that.

I also agree that, in the current market (and independently of the insolvency proceedings being under the supervision of the syndic (bankruptcy) judge),it is difficult to see South Pacific continuing with constructions, as the demand remains thin. Any talk of constructions is mostly PR.

As for lawyers, size does not matter so much as costs relative to the overall economic assessment of what can be recovered - the arbitration claims for a refund based on breach of contract are 100% clear, so any sensible lawyer could have achieved this, not just a more expensive one.

 

[tomas]

Some good points here. South Pacific, like any developer, will be putting its business interests first and the recent voluntary insolvency of the Adelaide development is part of that.

I also agree that, in the current market (and independently of the insolvency proceedings being under the supervision of the syndic (bankruptcy) judge),it is difficult to see South Pacific continuing with constructions, as the demand remains thin. Any talk of constructions is mostly PR.

As for lawyers, size does not matter so much as costs relative to the overall economic assessment of what can be recovered - the arbitration claims for a refund based on breach of contract are 100% clear, so any sensible lawyer could have achieved this, not just a more expensive one.

I agree with you Shape that the size of the law firm doesn't matter. My point is that it's better to have a good lawyer, then a cheap one. I also think it's best to use local lawyers.
We have a bigger law firm, simply because we have activities in several countries. We used our experience from one country when we started up in a new country.

 

[Nicola BSN]

Reply to Tomas

Tomas

Although some of the information you have posted is quite sensible I would like to know on what basis you have me linked to MRI?

If you are going to make a statement like that I'm sure you can back it up with some facts so lets have then please - and not just unsubstantiated gossip you've filched from somewhere else.

Update: our lawyers are in discussions with South Pacific lawyers, as I have previously mentioned, and they (S.P.) are discussing offering our clients property in Avalon, near Adelaide. This is just their opening gambit and, obviously, not acceptable at this stage. More will be posted as I know it - we are waiting on the current debt to asset ratio to be confirmed.

Before any of you start making accusations or refuting anything I have posted here -these are simply the facts as we go along and have come direct from the lawyers who, presumably, know an awful lot more than most of us posting here - me included! I pass on what they say and try to keep my opinion out of it as much as I can.

I will venture one piece of personal speculation: if South Pacific are 'negotiating' with buyers at Melbourne and Adelaide, it may take victims' attention away from getting themselves on the creditors list - a fine result for South Pacific if potential creditors miss the deadlines. However, this is purely my opinion looking at the situation that's emerging from the outside and in no way reflects ANY information provided to me or BSN Legal by our lawyers in Romania.

My advice still is: get on the creditors list ASAP. Do it cheaply, do it expensively - but DO IT NOW! Yes it will cost you but once the deadlines have passed if S. P. suddenly stop negotiating or making buyers offers you are up a certain creek without a paddle!

Good luck to you all.

 

[Nicola BSN]

I was writing my last post whilst the last one from Tomas went up so i have just seen it. Now I get it. Your big law firm is now in the picture and tells me what I need to know.

Here's an odd piece of info that has emerged from the Melbourne Table of Creditors: Adelaide are named on it! Not clear exactly how that works but we are trying to get an explanation of the implications from our lawyers. Info will be slow for a while as, of course, we now have Easter. But. as always, I will keep you posted when I know more.

Cheers.

 

[tomas]

Tomas

Although some of the information you have posted is quite sensible I would like to know on what basis you have me linked to MRI?

If you are going to make a statement like that I'm sure you can back it up with some facts so lets have then please - and not just unsubstantiated gossip you've filched from somewhere else.

Update: our lawyers are in discussions with South Pacific lawyers, as I have previously mentioned, and they (S.P.) are discussing offering our clients property in Avalon, near Adelaide. This is just their opening gambit and, obviously, not acceptable at this stage. More will be posted as I know it - we are waiting on the current debt to asset ratio to be confirmed.

Before any of you start making accusations or refuting anything I have posted here -these are simply the facts as we go along and have come direct from the lawyers who, presumably, know an awful lot more than most of us posting here - me included! I pass on what they say and try to keep my opinion out of it as much as I can.

I will venture one piece of personal speculation: if South Pacific are 'negotiating' with buyers at Melbourne and Adelaide, it may take victims' attention away from getting themselves on the creditors list - a fine result for South Pacific if potential creditors miss the deadlines. However, this is purely my opinion looking at the situation that's emerging from the outside and in no way reflects ANY information provided to me or BSN Legal by our lawyers in Romania.

My advice still is: get on the creditors list ASAP. Do it cheaply, do it expensively - but DO IT NOW! Yes it will cost you but once the deadlines have passed if S. P. suddenly stop negotiating or making buyers offers you are up a certain creek without a paddle!

Good luck to you all.

Nicola - this is what has been written earlier on this forum. I believe that you have confirmed that you have signed contracts organised via MRI.


"Out of curiosity would you happen to be the same Nicola - also resident in Spain -who signed the contracts under a power of attorney organised via MRI?"

...

"Shape
Your first post - yes of course it's me. I'm the only Nicola living in Spain - didn't you know that?
As for the second post - wrong again! As I said, our lawyers are in negotiations with South Pacific and I'll post more later when I have a bit more time."

I believe that everyone has to be responsible for their own decisions and transactions, so do we. We have done transactions with MRI, and have paid our price. Based on our experience anyone working for / worked for / represented MRI has no crediblity to me.

 

[Nicola BSN]

Tomas

I will make allowances as I believe (please confirm) that you are not British. If you were you would understand sarcasm. I think most people who post here do have English as their first language and understand perfectly a sarcastic comment when they read it!

The original comment that prompted my sarcastic reply was so silly it seemed the best way to deal with it.

My comment "I'm the only Nicola in Spain" is the clue.

 

[tomas]

I will make allowances as I believe (please confirm) that you are not British. If you were you would understand sarcasm. I think most people who post here do have English as their first language and understand perfectly a sarcastic comment when they read it!

The original comment that prompted my sarcastic reply was so silly it seemed the best way to deal with it.

My comment "I'm the only Nicola in Spain" is the clue.

Yes, I'm not british.
Ok - I'm maybe the only one in this world that doesn't understand your sarcasm, but that's ok for me.
I don't have to believe in you anyway, and I believe that everyone has to make their own decisions and take the responsibility of their actions.

I'm familiar with SP and receive information from our lawyer about our case.
I must say that it's interesting and funny to read about the hard work you and your lawyers are doing in Romania.

 

[Nicola BSN]

Tomas

I don't think there is anything funny about any of this. Actually, I am really busy and have better things to do than explain semantics to you.

I'll stick with posting facts as I receive them and will only take issue with people posting derogatory material about me or BSN Legal without foundation. Believe it, don't believe - you're right: everyone can make up their own mind.

Quite a few people have asked me to keep them up to date on what our lawyers are doing with S.P. cases and as long as they want that I will be happy to do so - work schedule permitting.

 

[tomas]

I don't think there is anything funny about any of this. Actually, I am really busy and have better things to do than explain semantics to you.

I'll stick with posting facts as I receive them and will only take issue with people posting derogatory material about me or BSN Legal without foundation. Believe it, don't believe - you're right: everyone can make up their own mind.

Quite a few people have asked me to keep them up to date on what our lawyers are doing with S.P. cases and as long as they want that I will be happy to do so - work schedule permitting.

I have one question for you Nicola:
I have visited your website.
Why should I as a client use your firm? I have looked at the internet and I couldn't easily find a name / responsible person at your website.
It's a newly established company and no information about your lawyers.
How can I be confident that your office is competent and have lawyers, even cooperating lawyers with expertise when I don't even know who they are?

 

[Nicola BSN]

Tomas

Your not a client - you have your own lawyers (according to you). End of. Whatever your agenda I'm not interested.

 

[tomas]

Your not a client - you have your own lawyers (according to you). End of. Whatever your agenda I'm not interested.

You are right, I'm not a client.
I need to know the lawyer working for me, and I need to feel confident that the lawyer are working for me and for my best interests.

By answering my question you would have a good opportunity to sell the services of your law firm, giving me the confidence that you have highly skilled lawyers with good references.

 

[Nicola BSN]

tomas

Read the rules of the forum. Your answer lies there. What are your lawyers' details out of interest?

 

[tomas]

Read the rules of the forum. Your answer lies there. What are your lawyers' details out of interest?

I believe that you could have told me something without any conflicts with the rules of the forum.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.

I don't see any reasons why you should know the details about our lawyer. I'm very confident with our law firm.
We have a law firm providing us with excellent service, and I wouldn't even dream of changing the law firm with another.
A big difference with them and your firm is that they have posted photos and detailed information about every lawyer on their website.
They are really professional and provides excellent legal services.

 

[Shape]

Tomas

Although some of the information you have posted is quite sensible I would like to know on what basis you have me linked to MRI?

If you are going to make a statement like that I'm sure you can back it up with some facts so lets have then please - and not just unsubstantiated gossip you've filched from somewhere else.

Update: our lawyers are in discussions with South Pacific lawyers, as I have previously mentioned, and they (S.P.) are discussing offering our clients property in Avalon, near Adelaide. This is just their opening gambit and, obviously, not acceptable at this stage. More will be posted as I know it - we are waiting on the current debt to asset ratio to be confirmed.

Before any of you start making accusations or refuting anything I have posted here -these are simply the facts as we go along and have come direct from the lawyers who, presumably, know an awful lot more than most of us posting here - me included! I pass on what they say and try to keep my opinion out of it as much as I can.

I will venture one piece of personal speculation: if South Pacific are 'negotiating' with buyers at Melbourne and Adelaide, it may take victims' attention away from getting themselves on the creditors list - a fine result for South Pacific if potential creditors miss the deadlines. However, this is purely my opinion looking at the situation that's emerging from the outside and in no way reflects ANY information provided to me or BSN Legal by our lawyers in Romania.

My advice still is: get on the creditors list ASAP. Do it cheaply, do it expensively - but DO IT NOW! Yes it will cost you but once the deadlines have passed if S. P. suddenly stop negotiating or making buyers offers you are up a certain creek without a paddle!

Good luck to you all.

The information about Avalon is the polar opposite of what we were told yesterday first hand from South Pacific. A transfer from Adelaide to Avalon is not on the table nor could it be on the table as they do not have permits for the new development.

From this point of view, the information about negotiating activity seems to be coming from your lawyers rather than South Pacific. In all countries it is wise to be alive to the possibility of any lawyer trying to pull the wool over your eyes with the appearance of frantic activity so as to justify fees.....

Anyway I hope the weather is nice with you in Gibraltar - maybe there will be some cool street parties for the Royal Wedding next week!

 

[Nicola BSN]

Dubious tactics

Shape

Our lawyers have been paid to monitor the creditors table and are simply reporting back what South pacific lawyers are saying. The fact that you are being told something different from South Pacific simply confirms my personal speculation that you quoted -

" I will venture one piece of personal speculation: if South Pacific are 'negotiating' with buyers at Melbourne and Adelaide, it may take victims' attention away from getting themselves on the creditors list - a fine result for South Pacific if potential creditors miss the deadlines. However, this is purely my opinion looking at the situation that's emerging from the outside and in no way reflects ANY information provided to me or BSN Legal by our lawyers in Romania."

Obviously our lawyers are privy to the evidence and discussions pertaining to their clients (both BSN Legal clients and their own) and can have no idea what South Pacific are up to with other involved parties, like yourself and others on the forum. And, actually, the lack of permits for Avalon was broached at the meeting and S.P. reckon they are imminent.

No-one: me, you, our lawyers, your lawyers or anyone else in this forum can state the true intentions of South Pacific at this point in time: yes or no?
Their offers and negotiations, at this stage in the game, are totally subject to personal opinion: yes or no?
The only safety net available for you all at this time is to be on the creditors list: yes or no?

So, personal opinion, debate and "my lawyer is bigger or better than your lawyer" schoolyard banter aside - does anyone disagree with me that you should get onto the creditor's list for safety's sake at the earliest opportunity? Yes or no? Simple enough question.

 

[Shape]

Shape

Our lawyers have been paid to monitor the creditors table and are simply reporting back what South pacific lawyers are saying. The fact that you are being told something different from South Pacific simply confirms my personal speculation that you quoted -

" I will venture one piece of personal speculation: if South Pacific are 'negotiating' with buyers at Melbourne and Adelaide, it may take victims' attention away from getting themselves on the creditors list - a fine result for South Pacific if potential creditors miss the deadlines. However, this is purely my opinion looking at the situation that's emerging from the outside and in no way reflects ANY information provided to me or BSN Legal by our lawyers in Romania."

Obviously our lawyers are privy to the evidence and discussions pertaining to their clients (both BSN Legal clients and their own) and can have no idea what South Pacific are up to with other involved parties, like yourself and others on the forum. And, actually, the lack of permits for Avalon was broached at the meeting and S.P. reckon they are imminent.

No-one: me, you, our lawyers, your lawyers or anyone else in this forum can state the true intentions of South Pacific at this point in time: yes or no?
Their offers and negotiations, at this stage in the game, are totally subject to personal opinion: yes or no?
The only safety net available for you all at this time is to be on the creditors list: yes or no?

So, personal opinion, debate and "my lawyer is bigger or better than your lawyer" schoolyard banter aside - does anyone disagree with me that you should get onto the creditor's list for safety's sake at the earliest opportunity? Yes or no? Simple enough question.

It is odd that South Pacific's lawyers appear to be off-message from South Pacific itself, but, as Tomas says, there is no real scope for South Pacific to offer such a deal as it would have to be approved by the bankruptcy judge and the creditors in a vote on a re-organisation plan - this might be as long as a year away so your lawyers should really be giving clients the bigger picture. Legally and economically, it has no logic either for South Pacific or the buyers to be in any negotiations at the present time.

South Pacific's true intentions will be to recover what they can from their investment, which may or may not include taking into account the interests of depositors. Some Romanian developers like Conarg have voluntarily repaid 50% of the deposit even where they built on time, but they did this for PR purposes and are a strong enough company to do this.

By contrast South Pacific's association with MRI has done them no favours and this may well explain the decision to change the name to Adelaide Residence, for example.

Registration as a creditor in the Table of Creditors a not really a simple question and a "safety net" is not appropriate as an analogy. Buyers have a pretty poor choice because they have to file by a deadline, but, at the same time, they do not know what debts the developer has filled a company with, to whom the developer has mortgaged the land and buildings to or how diligent a judicial administrator will be in setting aside dodgy debt created with related parties. However, if the buyer does not register, he will be left out of account.

 

[Nicola BSN]

So a grudging agreement is: yes, they should get themselves listed as creditors.

"However, if the buyer does not register, he will be left out of account."

 

[Shape]

So a grudging agreement is: yes, they should get themselves listed as creditors.

"However, if the buyer does not register, he will be left out of account."

I admire your capacity for over-simplification and diverting attention from the "busy" activities of your lawyers. But I know you are the marketing and PR bit rather than the legal bit of the operation.

The bottom line is that buyers should take the advice of independent lawyers who are registered with the Bar in Romania and try to take a reasoned view of whether to register in the insolvency proceedings against the cost of doing this or , to take a deep breath, and to write off the investment at this point.

Anyway I'll offer you a beer when I am next in Marbella!

 

[Nicola BSN]

Shape

Can't you just admit they should get on the creditors list while they still can?

I'm not diverting attention from anything. I'm trying to focus on what is urgent and needs to be dealt with now. Where do I say anywhere that anyone should come through us? If you look around at my posts I tell people to use the Consulate as a source of independent lawyers or the AIPP is meant to be good. Our website and paperwork goes on at length about using an independent lawyer - we don't say it has to be ours.

I would feel very dubious about anyone trying to put people off getting on the creditors list. If you put the work in yourself it can be done cheaply - if you want to hand all the work over to someone else you pay the price for their work.

Nor am I oversimplifying anything as, aside from the creditors list (which is a fairly simple decision) we are all just speculating on what S.P. is really up to and only those of you who work for them or their lawyers know the real agenda at this point in time. Still, all this gossip is good for the forum.

And I'm a Bailey's girl, by the way, so if you can stretch to that let me know when you're down this way!

 

[tomas]

I admire your capacity for over-simplification and diverting attention from the "busy" activities of your lawyers. But I know you are the marketing and PR bit rather than the legal bit of the operation.

The bottom line is that buyers should take the advice of independent lawyers who are registered with the Bar in Romania and try to take a reasoned view of whether to register in the insolvency proceedings against the cost of doing this or , to take a deep breath, and to write off the investment at this point.

Anyway I'll offer you a beer when I am next in Marbella!

I completely agree with you in what you say. What you write on this forum makes sense to me.
Independent lawyer is a key word, and registration with the Bar is a good point.

Happy Easter for you all!