Summary of the meeting in Campos del Rio

An estimated 200 people attended the meeting which was initially meant only for members of the Association, but which permitted access to the media and to all those who wished to express an opinion, even those who are not within the group of affected, such as lawyers and representatives of other building companies, interested in business agreements. The founders of the Association had also invited two specialists in bankruptcy cases who had traveled from Barcelona and were well informed of our situation so as to be able to answer any questions from the participants. These two solicitors outlined three main solutions to our situation.

1) Bankruptcy.
According to their estimates, the worst of the three possible solutions would be completing the bankruptcy procedure, which would lead most probably to an auctioning off of the land at a very low price considering its present state as rustic, non-urban land. They claimed that although the town hall has promised the approval of the final building permissions, they are obliged to consider the situation of their municipality as a whole and particularly the current regulations which set limits to the extensions of urban land provided for. It would therefore be very likely that the town hall might be reluctant to approve a large increase of urban land in a specific area, unless they have a certain guarantee that building will actually take place. A local lawyer who represents some of the affected in a criminal case, as well as in the bankruptcy case, argued over this, claiming that the town hall has promised to approve the building permissions, with or without guarantees, so that by the time the land would be on auction it would already be urban. However, all the solicitors as well as the affected seemed to agree that an auctioning of the land as a result of the bankruptcy would in any case be the worst possible solution for all the affected. The estimates as to how much of our money would be returned to us in this case went as low as 1%.

2) Alternative projects.
The two main alternatives to the bankruptcy would both be based on agreements with the bankruptcy administrators so as to cancel the bankruptcy. Negotiations have already been initiated, and the Association has been legally formed, mainly so that our representatives can take part in the negotiations of any such agreements. Several options for building on the land based on alternative projects were also discussed at the meeting. A building company, who had previously approached the bankruptcy administrators, offered the affected new contracts, with discounts based on the sums already paid, in a planned urbanization in the nearby village of Fortuna. Brochures were handed out to some of the participants but the solicitors commented that any such offer would have to be thoroughly considered after being set forth in detail. Another idea on similar lines, which was discussed briefly at the meeting, was the allotting of individual parcels of land to each affected buyer according to the sum paid. The abovementioned local lawyer seemed to support this idea, but the solicitors specialized in bankruptcy matters warned that the outcome of such an initiative would be uncertain, as it might end in failure after very long and complicated negotiations involving each of the 1600 contracts presented to the bankruptcy administrators. An attempted solution along such lines would then only benefit the lawyers involved.




3) Trampolin Hills.
The solution which, according to the two solicitors advising those who attended the meeting, would be most beneficial to all affected, would also be the simplest to negotiate with the bankruptcy administrators and the town hall. This solution; building based on the current project, inevitably involves the Trampolin Group, which are still negotiating the financing of the project. The only major obstacle to such an agreement seems to be distrust, partially due to the abovementioned criminal case and strongly expressed by some of the buyers, leading to reluctance to sign a new contract with the same company. However, the Association would consider such an agreement, because it is clearly the most beneficial for all affected, on conditions which aim to give the buyers all the guarantees they should have been provided with from the start and now need more than ever. In this event the Association would hopefully be able to coordinate our demands to reach a best possible agreement. However, the final approval and signing of the agreement would be up to each individual buyer.

Whichever of these three main solutions we end up with; unifying our voices by means of an Association will greatly improve our chances of getting heard. The meeting held showed clearly the democratic and open spirit of the founders of the Association. As for legal advice, which will be of utmost importance for the Association, the abovementioned local lawyer who is already involved in the criminal case against the company, offered his legal advice free of charge by the end of the meeting. Although this advice was not rejected by the founders of the Association, there will most certainly be additional advice from independent specialists on bankruptcy cases.
A local newspaper, reporting on the meeting, quoted extensively one of the most critical voices among the participants, an affected who is also an estate agent, apparently having sold some 80 properties for the Trampolin Group. He claimed that the founders of the Association are trying to profit from the situation and that the affected were opposed to being asked to pay an admission fee of 24 €. We feel that the admission fee is a very small charge considering it may lead to our achieving the best possible solution for everyone on the best possible terms. We therefore urge all affected to join the Association and keep up our hopes of a good outcome despite the major problems we are facing.