Tag archives for Premier GRoup Isle of man

A Judge nullifies 12 equity release mortgages worth 6 million Euros

Share

Vista de los juzgados de Bilbao en los que se ha llevado el caso.

Source: Diario Sur

The sale was conducted through commission-driven financial advisors based in Estepona, Marbella and Fuengirola.

Court of First Instance 11 in Bilbao has ruled that twelve mortgage loans valued at 6 million Euros, granted to British families mostly in the Malaga province between 2004 and 2007, should be declared void.

The Court dealt with this case as all loans were granted at a Bilbao Notary Public and the representatives of the lender, SL Mortgage Funding nÂș1 Limited (SLMF), were also based in the Basque city, according to Lawbird Legal Services S.L.P.

These loans were sold to attain a reduction in potential inheritance tax, inasmuch as the mortgage would reduce the taxable value of the property, but also as a means to supplement the modest pensions received by the owners of the properties.

Chester-based SL Mortgage Funding nÂș1 Limited (SLMF) had not applied for the necessary regulatory permits to legally raise funds from the public and provide an investment service, activities reserved and regulated by the Bank of Spain and the CNMV (financial regulator).

In spite of not having any of the above authorizations, SLMF would lend but at the same time retain most of the proceeds of the loan, which would then be invested by them.

The ruling declares that “infringing the protocols set by the relevant administrative authority to supervise the disputed product is a regulatory violation that exceeds that of a mere breach of banking laws, such as misselling, so profusely dealt with recently in relation to the massive sale of complex financial products.”

The Judge held that in this case, the breach of public policy “is far more serious for it makes a mockery of a whole system of financial and banking supervision designed to prevent abuses to consumers and protect the stability of the sector”, and likens this behaviour “civil fraud”, which is any proposal that contravenes mandatory regulations or has a false or forbidden reason.

The sale of this product was conducted via commission-earning financial advisory firms (Hamiltons Financial Services, Henry Woods Investment Management and others), based in Estepona, Marbella and Fuengirola.

SLMF also recommended a network of lawyers that created an appearance of seriousness, downplaying the extent of the lack of licensing requirements of the bank and the product.

According to Lawbird Legal Services S.L.P., for the claimants, the ruling confirms that operating in breach of mandatory banking and financial regulations makes the suspect a “boiler room”, -even if the company was legally operating in their own country- and allows the victims to rid themselves of a nightmare lasting for over 10 years.

The Judge concludes that the nullity and voidness should be made applicable to all contracts and agreements executed between the clients and the bank, applying the laws of contractual termination in odd fashion –albeit most favourable- as clients “will be able to claim what consideration they gave under the contract without having to return was given to them.”

Other articles:

La Vanguardia

El Economista

Finanzas.com

Day In Court Against SLM and Premier Isle of Man

Share

On Thursday 14th July, Bilbao Courts heard the case of a number of the SITIRS (Spanish Inheritance Tax and Income Release Scheme) product against Surrenda Link and Premier Isle of Man companies.

From the victims’ part, lawyers insisted –and proved beyond doubt- on the crucial lack of regulatory clearance on not only the product, but the financial entities and the IFAs. Lawyers also proved that the inheritance tax reduction proposition was fraudulent. Our lawyers alleged that the product, called SITIRS (Spanish Inheritance Tax and Income Scheme), was a sham in every aspect. They also evidenced that lawyers appointed to act for victims were for the most part on the list of SLM appointed lawyers.

A witness who had worked for Hamilton’s attended as the hearing and confirmed that clients were approached by telephone cold-calling. The witness also advised that IHT was the main reason why this product ever existed, in the first place. When asked by the Judge if her company was registered, the witness stated that it had applied for a license but never received a reply from the CNMV.

For the part of SLM and Premier, the former argued that all risks were properly presented to the customer by signing the relevant forms. Insofar as Premier is concerned, their main allegation was that they were a different company from the one that sold the product during the 2005-2007 period.

The presiding Judge took an interest in the case beyond what is normal and tried, whether successfully or not, to understand the mechanics of this product. At one point, she argued that if this whole financial proposition was so difficult for legal people to understand, what chances did pensioners have (?).

The trial took six hours and the parties presented their oral conclusions.

The ruling will be issued any time now although, as August is a Court holiday month, it may be that we do not hear any more until September.

SLM and PREMIER GROUP in Court on 14 July 2016

Share

SLM (Surrenda Link Mortgages) and Premier Group will attend trial at the Bilbao Courts on the 14/07/2016. Lawyers for all parties have objected to at least three trial date appointments as they had other cases to attend.

According to the claimants’ writ, SLM and the Premier Group, both lacking permission to operate in Spain, orchestrated the marketing and sale of a financial product for inheritance tax mitigation purposes.

SLM has argued that they were just the lenders, having no participation in the investment side of the product. For its part, The Premier Group argued that they had never operated in Spain and that they are not the same company as The Premier Group that operated prior to 2009, which was domiciled in the BVI.

Lawyers for claimants proved that both companies are the same, having shares offices, telephone and fax numbers and even today, email and website addresses. The document proving this has been recently admitted by the Court as evidence in support of claimats’ allegations.

 

 

Skip to toolbar