- May 29, 2007 at 4:03 pm #52914
Just heard that Eralia has sold all their shares in Los Lagos de Santa Maria, Santa Maria Green Hills and La Hacienda del Senorio de Cifuentes.
The main owner now is Mr Eustaquio Moleon who apparently has been the main shareholder in these developments.
- May 29, 2007 at 5:51 pm #72480
It’s called bailing out!!!!!!!!!
😈 😈 😈 😈 😈
Leonardo Cromstedt was the main shareholder in Eralia…or so we were led to believe.Mr Eustaquio Moleon was listed as Jimminez Moleon on the shareholders list. He owns Moleon Construcciones (sp?) who were the builders of Green Hills. Las Vistas,supposedly to be demolished ,is a Moleon development. It stands behind Los Lagos. The mind boggles.
With so many court cases against Eralia I’m amazed they can just “sell out” !!!!!!!!!!! Maybe they want to “get rid” of the name Eralia as it has had a great deal of bad publicity and they are hoping that these three developments will get a new personna under new ownership!!
Laggen how did you hear about this.?
- May 29, 2007 at 7:56 pm #72490
Any thing can be sold. Its a question of price. Besides dont take this on face value there could be other reasons behind the sale such as asset stripping and a token sale price could have been paid or legal as far as I am aware.
Some of you may in the 70s, this was the done thing to do. If my memory serve me right a famous person at the time called James Slater, gained a lot of fame,
- May 31, 2007 at 11:10 am #72589
Claire…it’s actually baling out, not bailing. If he was bailing you out of any problems at the complex, you would be delighted!
- May 31, 2007 at 1:26 pm #72597
Thanks Colin 🙂 We are already out thank goodness.
I’m wondering how this will affect the many Court cases going on against Eralia owned companies. Whilst Santa Maria Green Hills is owned by Marbella Vista Golf and La Hacienda del Senorio de Cifuentes is owned by Dreamhills , Los Lagos was owned by Eralia. Eralia being part of the Sifasa Group.
Is Leonardo Cromstedt still a director of Dream Hills and MVG? These two companies were/are under the Grupo Eralia umbrella. When the s*** hit the fan in 2005, everyone was told that Eralia was just the promoter! 😕 Not what their glossy brochures said.
- May 31, 2007 at 4:36 pm #72603
Sounds a bit fishy 🙄 I smell a rat (or is it a pig 😉 ) It reminds me of the double glazing co’s in the UK who went out of business to set up the next week under another name, reason being they did not have to comply with guarantees, court orders etc.
- May 31, 2007 at 7:40 pm #72614
What exactly has been sold, the shares, with assets, liabilities, guarantees, stock?
This could be interesting to follow.
What Katy saids is a good clear simple way of explaining what can happen, but you can guarantee it will be more sophisticated.
- May 31, 2007 at 10:01 pm #72621
Shares owned by GRUPO ERALIA SL. for the developments in question
DREAM HILL SL. 14%
LOS LAGOS DE SANTA MARIA GOLF S.L. 5.64%
MARBELLA VISTA GOLF S.L. 6.75%
From their accounts 2004
- May 31, 2007 at 10:42 pm #72625
My feeling as to what could be behind this is maybe Grupo Eralia simply does not want their ‘prestigious’ name connected with the many court cases going on. Remember that they have even won awards for ‘best appt’ etc. in the past and have quite a reputation to try and preserve.
Because of the current situation of these three developments re. revoked building licences and refused LFO’s applied for by the Administrative Silence route, there is a possibility they just want to disassociate themselves to protect the Eralia name……and of course to avoid any of the responsibility.
And/or maybe they have heard something a bit more sinister that could be coming down the line? Am sure if the Town Hall start issuing fines to developers there could be quite a lot of (bad) publicity just waiting to happen.
It seems it has always been Eralia’s policy to open a ‘daughter’ company for each new development – often with the same men as directors. Just a good way to protect the parent company in times of trouble.
- June 1, 2007 at 5:51 am #72626
I think it is less sinister than you think. Our development was “transferred” to Arquigest once there was an asset (that is a set of buildings) to transfer and therefore less risk to the main company.
One of the worries was that the holding company would go bust as it had no assets, well now it’s been transferred to a company with assets.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.