We would like to give a short, comprehensive and general update on the Criminal Class Action against Resort Properties / Silverpoint in order to avoid any misleading information from dubious sources
April 2011 – Lawsuit against Resort Properties/ Silverpoint filed at the Court.
June 2011 – Case accepted by the court and the preliminary proceedings commence.
October 2011 – Silverpoint Vacations SL present themselves to the Court and ask to join the proceedings.
December 2011 – State Attorney asks the Judge (i) For an appraisal of weeks (ii) To instruct the Criminal Police to investigate the facts of the case presented (iii) Take statements from the defendants.
April 2012 – The lawyer in charge attends a meeting with the Judge in charge and with the State Attorney to ascertain how far the case has progressed.
October 2012 – The Judge receives an official report from the National Police regarding the activity and people linked to the Resort Properties Group. It concludes that Resort Properties is a product of Silverpoint.
January 2013 – The lawyer in charge asks the Court for witness protection for an ex Resort Properties employee whose testimony will be pivotal to the case.
May 2013 – Silverpoint Vacations SL appeals against the request for witness protection
September 2013 – Having previously identified Barclays and their culpability the lawyer in charge now requests the court to increase Barclays civil liability to cover the full amount of funds involved and not just the interest as previously requested.
October 2013 – The lawyer in charge asks the Judge to order the defendants a bail to guarantee the civil responsible, also he asks the Judge to place an embargo on the assets of Resort Properties/Silverpoints or the seizure of properties as security for clients’ monies.
November 2013 – The lawyer in charge attends the first official appearance at the court in Tenerife. This is a standard procedure in any criminal action in Spain where he has to confirm that he is still representing all 233 victims and that all 233 victims want to continue the proceedings. He also reconfirms the details of the criminal action.
March 2014 – The Judge requests: (i) The appointment of an Expert for the appraisal of the weeks (we know this has been done but so far no report has been received from the expert) (ii) Statement of the defendants.
May 2014 – Silverpoint Vacations, SL appeal against the request for the seizure of assets and/or an embargo to protects the victim’s claims.
June 2014 – The Court rejects witness protection.
July 2014 – The lawyer in charge submits to the Court the written statement of one witness which explains clearly the modus operandi of Resort Properties/Silverpoint Vacations, SL.
July 2014 – The final pending documents and contributions of the victims together with their corresponding translations are submitted to the Court.
September 2014 – Starts the accused party´s declaration, where they all rejected (which is in their right) to give any statement.
December 2014 – Requesting the court to start with the ratification of the claimants.
April 2015 – Court accepts to start the ratifications.
May 2015 – Starting the ratifications of the claimants.
May-2015 – Silverpoint asks for the provisional dismissal of the case.
June 2015 – Oppositions of different lawyers to the temporary closure.
Although there are many pending diligence’s to carry out which makes the temporary dismissal of the case technically incorrect, the substitute judge (the fourth one in this procedure) has decided to accept it. In the lawyers´ opinion it is contradictory to the Penal Law and therefore it will be appealed.
In Spain the provisional closure is a very common in the penal proceedings, as it only means a temporary cease on the investigation from the court´s side encouraging the claimants to present more arguments and evidences for their case. This transitory dismissal would become permanent if there are no further movements in three years or any other significant evidences without any limitation for time. This is clearly not the case in this criminal class action.
We shall also mention that the Supreme Court of Madrid earlier this year has pronounced on several occasions in the favour of the timeshare owners. They declared time-share contracts with in perpetuity clause null and void, and also confirmed that the floating system is illegal. We are pleased to see that the highest ranking court in Spain is not only dedicated but prepared to fulfill the EU Directive and the Spanish Time-share Law in order to protect consumers.
We are confident to witness a similar victory for all of those who are challenging Silverpoint in the Spanish courts.