Attention to all Harlequin Clients!!!

New information about our action against Harlequin Property.

We have organised 3 meetings next month (the 9th and the 1oth of April) in London to help the investors with the harlequin. The QC, a top UK lawyer (with a proven track record in Civil Fraud) and a top insolvency practitioner will be present at the meetings to give individual advice and guidance to each client’s case. The initial meeting is free of charge and if you decide to stay with us the cost will be kept to a minimum. If you can’t attend our meeting we can still represent you.

Contact us:

email: cpcholding@europe.com

Tel: 0191 386 2487

Harlequin Hotels and Resorts

Tag Archives: Harlequin Hotels and Resorts

BY  | MARCH 23, 2013 · 11:25 AM

Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves: How many travel writers will you jail?

Kenton Chance Wikileak

St. Vincent’s racist Prime Minister is on the record very upset that two BBC journalists ‘snuck’ into the country by telling Immigration authorities they were visiting as tourists when they were really working on a story about Harlequin and Dave Ames. Had the BBC journalists been filming a feel-good travel or investment article, Gonsalves wouldn’t have had a problem with them.

Too bad the BBC story was about how Harlequin collected hundreds of millions of pounds from British pensioners but only built a handful of promised holiday homes before running out of money.

Gonsalves threatened that Panorama tele-journalists Paul Kenyon and Mathew Hill committed crimes punishable by imprisonment.

No word on what PM Gonsalves thinks about Harlequin’s Ponzi scheme, but he is sure upset at the reporters for mentioning it!

How dare dem bloody reporters come snooping around and then expose the story of how SVG  and its politicians let a twice-bankrupt double glazing salesman get away with using the country to promote a pyramid scheme!

One problem though: does Prime Minister Gonsalves intend to apply the same rules to every travel journalist who comes to SVG as a tourist and then writes nice things about the island? Or is Gonsalves only concerned about the law when investigative journalists expose the truth?

If Prime Minister Gonsalves wants to put some journalists in jail he should start with every travel and finance writer who took a free trip from Harlequin and declared they were on holiday when they arrived in SVG. They are the ones who printed the flowery stories that set the trap for thousands of trusting Britons to lose their pensions. If any journalists deserve jail, it is that bunch.

Of course, it’s a good thing that the BBC journalists are of the white race because Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves is probably going soft on them.

News about Harlequin

BY  | MARCH 25, 2013 · 11:45 AM

Harlequin Legal Survey – Results to be published here

Gareth Fatchett of Regulatory Legal Solicitors

Gareth Fatchett of Regulatory Legal Solicitors

Lawyer Gareth Fatchett and Regulatory Legal Solicitors are conducting a survey of Harlequin ‘investors’. The results will be published here at Barbados Free Press, and we understand that Mr. Fatchett will be making additional recommendations based on the results.

We encourage readers to head on over and take a look, and then make your own decisions.

After all, we at BFP didn’t invest in Harlequin and I can’t say we know of any Bajans who did. That might have been a flag for foreign investors or a question they might have asked. Too late now to ask “Have any locals invested?”, but next time maybe!

Harlequin Investor Survey

Harlequin Property News

BY BFP | MARCH 14, 2013 · 11:44 AM

Harlequin Properties stunner! “No agent confirmed Harlequin’s land holdings or company information” SIPP-Pension investors advised to act immediately

Harlequin Resort

“…the due diligence undertaken was the brochures, sale presentations and (free) trips to St. Vincent and the Grenadines.”

“SIPP Investors / Pension Transfers would be foolhardy to wait as Professional Indemnity Insurance stops immediately upon an insolvency procedure.”

Regulatory Legal Solicitors special report posted on Barbados Free Press

Harlequin investors are sure to be flabbergasted by today’s posting at Barbados Free Press by UK law firm Regulatory Legal Solicitors and their leading lawyer Gareth Fatchett. Mr. Fatchett was in the news lately as he was successful in achieving some kind of settlement for a handful of Harlequin victims.

Today’s Regulatory Legal Solicitors posting alleges that none of the agents advising folks to invest in Harlequin took the trouble to confirm that Harlequin actually held the land it was selling. No sales agent went to the trouble of obtaining company information about Harlequin’s Caribbean operations. And if you want to talk about “Due Diligence”, the agents confined their research to brochures, Harlequin sales presentations and (presumably free) trips to St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Throw in free drinks and a few “hostesses” and Bob’s your uncle… the agents were ready to sell Harlequin and at a tempting 30% commission at that. (Not that we’ve heard of Harlequin doing the “hostesses” thing, but this is the Caribbean ya know!)

Master Agent suspends Harlequin sales

The master agent has apparently stopped selling Harlequin so we’ll have more on that in a bit. That sounds important to us because once the sales stop, how can Harlequin sustain current operations even if they scale back? We’re not even talking about building and new construction, just keeping the place open. There’s no staff worth talking about at the Barbados operations, and that is worth thinking about. Was the master agent “TailorMade” ? Can someone advise? See IFA Online’s article Harlequin distributor pulls plug on new investment.

Mr. Fatchett advises SIPP Investors and Pension Transfers to take action immediately because if Harlequin goes insolvent, that is the the end of Professional Indemnity Insurance. Complain now and if it all goes for a fall, the agents’ insurance might cover something. Wait… and, well, the lawyer doesn’t say other than the agents’ indemnity insurance ends but you can read between the lines for yourself. The post also provides advice for other classes of Harlequin investors, so have a read and make up your own mind, folks!

Discussion in the Comments Section

We’re going to make this post the current place at BFP to discuss the Harlequin situation, so join in and please remember to be respectful to each other and also watch the language, okay?

To keep all current discussion in one place, we’re also going to close off comments on previous articles and direct people here. That will take some time so please be patient.

Harlequin Properties news

Harlequin Properties stunner! “No agent confirmed Harlequin’s land holdings or company information” SIPP-Pension investors advised to act immediately

Harlequin Resort
“…the due diligence undertaken was the brochures, sale presentations and (free) trips to St. Vincent and the Grenadines.”
“SIPP Investors / Pension Transfers would be foolhardy to wait as Professional Indemnity Insurance stops immediately upon an insolvency procedure.”
Regulatory Legal Solicitors special report posted on Barbados Free Press
Harlequin investors are sure to be flabbergasted by today’s posting at Barbados Free Press by UK law firm Regulatory Legal Solicitors and their leading lawyer Gareth Fatchett. Mr. Fatchett was in the news lately as he was successful in achieving some kind of settlement for a handful of Harlequin victims.
Today’s Regulatory Legal Solicitors posting alleges that none of the agents advising folks to invest in Harlequin took the trouble to confirm that Harlequin actually held the land it was selling. No sales agent went to the trouble of obtaining company information about Harlequin’s Caribbean operations. And if you want to talk about “Due Diligence”, the agents confined their research to brochures, Harlequin sales presentations and (presumably free) trips to St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Throw in free drinks and a few “hostesses” and Bob’s your uncle… the agents were ready to sell Harlequin and at a tempting 30% commission at that. (Not that we’ve heard of Harlequin doing the “hostesses” thing, but this is the Caribbean ya know!)
Master Agent suspends Harlequin sales
The master agent has apparently stopped selling Harlequin so we’ll have more on that in a bit. That sounds important to us because once the sales stop, how can Harlequin sustain current operations even if they scale back? We’re not even talking about building and new construction, just keeping the place open. There’s no staff worth talking about at the Barbados operations, and that is worth thinking about. Was the master agent “TailorMade” ? Can someone advise? See IFA Online’s article Harlequin distributor pulls plug on new investment.
Mr. Fatchett advises SIPP Investors and Pension Transfers to take action immediately because if Harlequin goes insolvent, that is the the end of Professional Indemnity Insurance. Complain now and if it all goes for a fall, the agents’ insurance might cover something. Wait… and, well, the lawyer doesn’t say other than the agents’ indemnity insurance ends but you can read between the lines for yourself. The post also provides advice for other classes of Harlequin investors, so have a read and make up your own mind, folks!
Discussion in the Comments Section
We’re going to make this post the current place at BFP to discuss the Harlequin situation, so join in and please remember to be respectful to each other and also watch the language, okay?
To keep all current discussion in one place, we’re also going to close off comments on previous articles and direct people here. That will take some time so please be patient.
Marcus @ BFP

Bank repossession in Spain


    
Court of Justice of the European Union
PRESS RELEASE No 30/13
Luxembourg, 14 March 2013
Judgment in Case C‑415/11
Mohamed Aziz v Catalunyacaixa


Spanish legislation infringes EU law to the extent that it precludes the court which has jurisdiction to declare unfair a term of a loan agreement relating to immovable property from staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings initiated separately.
Spanish legislation lists the grounds, which are very limited, upon which a debtor may object to mortgage enforcement proceedings. Those grounds do not include the existence of an unfair term in the mortgage loan agreement. Thus, that fact can be relied upon only in separate declaratory proceedings which do not have the effect of staying the mortgage enforcement proceedings. In addition, in the Spanish enforcement proceedings, the final vesting of immovable property in a third party – such as a bank – is, in principle, irreversible. Consequently, if the court hearing the declaratory proceedings declares a term of a loan agreement unfair and accordingly annuls the mortgage enforcement proceedings after enforcement has taken place, that judgment can enable that consumer to obtain only subsequent protection of a purely compensatory nature, the person evicted being unable to recover ownership of his property.
In July 2007, Mr Aziz, a Moroccan national residing in Spain, concluded with the bank Catalunyacaixa a loan agreement to the value of €138,000 secured by a mortgage over his family home.  He stopped paying his instalments with effect from June 2008. After having called upon him to pay without success, the bank initiated enforcement proceedings against him. When Mr Aziz failed to appear, execution was ordered.  An auction of his immovable property was arranged, but no bid was made, with the result that, in accordance with the Spanish legislation, ownership of the property was vested in the bank at 50% of its value. On 20 January 2011, Mr Aziz was evicted from his home. Shortly beforehand, he applied for a declaration seeking annulment of a term of the mortgage loan agreement, on the ground that it was unfair and, accordingly, of the mortgage enforcement proceedings.
In that context, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Commercial Court No 3, Barcelona) before which the case was brought, decided to ask the Court of Justice, first, about the compatibility of Spanish law with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive[1], since Spanish law makes it extremely difficult for the court to ensure effective protection of the consumer and, second, about the essential characteristics of the concept of ‘unfair term’ within the meaning of that directive.
In today’s judgment, the Court answers, first, that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive precludes national legislation, such as the Spanish legislation at issue, which does not allow the court hearing the declaratory proceedings – that is, the proceedings seeking a declaration that a term is unfair – to adopt interim measures, in particular, the staying of the enforcement proceedings, where they are necessary to guarantee the full effectiveness of its final decision.
As a preliminary point, the court recalls that, in the absence of harmonisation of the national mechanisms for enforcement, the grounds of opposition allowed in mortgage enforcement proceedings and the powers conferred on the court hearing the declaratory proceedings are a matter for the national legal order of each Member State. However, that legislation may not be any less favourable than that governing similar situations subject to domestic law (principle of equivalence) and it must not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred on consumers by EU law (principle of effectiveness).
With regard to the latter principle, the Court considers that the Spanish procedural system impairs the effectiveness of the protection which the directive seeks to achieve. That is so in all cases where enforcement is carried out in respect of the property before the court hearing the declaratory proceedings declares the contractual term on which the mortgage is based unfair and, accordingly, annuls the enforcement proceedings. Since the court hearing the declaratory proceedings is precluded from staying the enforcement proceedings, that declaration of invalidity allows the consumer to obtain only subsequent protection of a purely compensatory nature. That compensation is thus incomplete and insufficient, and would not constitute either an adequate or effective means of preventing the continued use of those terms. That applies all the more strongly where, as in this case, the mortgaged property is the family home of the consumer whose rights have been infringed, since that means of consumer protection is limited to payment of damages and interest and does not make it possible to prevent the definitive and irreversible loss of the home. It would thus be sufficient for sellers or suppliers to initiate mortgage enforcement proceedings in order to deprive consumers of the protection intended by the directive. The Court therefore holds that the Spanish legislation does not comply with the principle of effectiveness, in so far as it makes impossible or excessively difficult, in mortgage enforcement proceedings initiated by sellers or suppliers against consumer defendants, to apply the protection which the directive confers on those consumers.
Second, when examining the concept of the unfair term[2], the Court states that the ‘significant imbalance’ arising from such a term must be assessed taking into account the rules which would apply under national law in the absence of an agreement by the parties in that regard. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of the consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out. In order to determine whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be assessed whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations.
In the light of those criteria, it is for the national court to assess whether the default interest clause inserted in the contract signed by Mr Aziz is unfair. That clause provides for annual default interest of 18.75%, automatically applicable to sums not paid when due, without the need for any notice. The national court must in particular compare that rate with the statutory interest rate[3], and determine whether it is appropriate for securing the attainment of the objectives pursued in Spain and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them.
Equally, the acceleration clause of the contract concerned allows the bank to call in the totality of the loan after a single failure to meet a due payment of principal or interest. The national court must in particular assess whether that right is conditional upon the non-compliance by the consumer with an essential obligation of the contract and whether such non-compliance is sufficiently serious in the light of the term and amount of the loan.
Finally, the clause on unilateral quantification of the unpaid debt stipulates that the bank may immediately quantify that amount in order to initiate mortgage enforcement proceedings. The national court must assess whether and, if appropriate, to what extent, that term makes it more difficult for the consumer, given the procedural means at his disposal, to take legal action and exercise rights of the defence.  



NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.


Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Press contact: Christopher Fretwell  (+352) 4303 3355
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from “Europe by Satellite”  (+32) 2 2964106


[1]Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
[2]According to the directive, a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
[3]In Spain, the statutory interest rate in 2007 was 5%.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

If you have a problem of repossession in Spain, CPC Worldwide can help you following the European Court of Justice sentence which declared that the Spanish repossession law is against the EU law on cunsomer protection

Harlequin court case

Embattled Harlequin in out-of-court investor settlement

A law firm has dropped its legal case against property investment firm Harlequin after an out-of-court settlement was reached.

By Marc Shoffman | Published Mar 11, 2013 | 0 comments
A statement from Regulatory Legal, which was representing investors trying to recoup money from the Essex-based business, said attempts to freeze the firm’s assets would not go ahead.
Regulatory Legal had issued proceedings at Birmingham High Court to freeze the assets of Harlequin Property amid concern about investor money put into projects in the Caribbean.
A statement from the law firm said: “Within the substantive proceedings an application for a freezing order was made. The freezing order application was listed on 7 March.
“The judge postponed the hearing of the application until 14 March. The claimants asked for an interim order for seven days until the hearing on 14 March. This interim application was not granted by the court.
“The parties reached an agreement on 8 March. The terms of the settlement are confidential. Procedurally, the claimants’ lawyers will appear before the court on the 14 March to obtain an order from the court finalising proceedings.”
A statement from Harlequin said: “On Thursday 7 March 2013, Regulatory Legal Solicitors, acting for six purchasers of properties at Buccament Bay Resort, applied for a freezing order against Harlequin Property and Buccament Bay Resort Limited.
“This very public application followed days of media speculation unfairly inferring that Harlequin Property and Buccament Bay Resort would be forced to stop trading.
“Harlequin is pleased to say the court refused to grant the application and we are trading as normal.
“Harlequin denies any wrongdoing and looks forward to clearing its name in relation to the other allegations that are being referred to in the press.”
The firm has come under scrutiny since the release of an FSA alert urging advisers to ensure they conduct due diligence on the investments.