MBI and Northern Powerhouse Developments

Jan_Case

Thank you so much for the link! Just out of interest what is your favoured option out of the 2 tabled at the meeting on 2 October.....many thanks

npd_investor

Jan_Case wrote: »

Thank you so much for the link! Just out of interest what is your favoured option out of the 2 tabled at the meeting on 2 October.....many thanks

Personally I think the hotels are marketed well below market value and the amount left after subtracting all the costs will not be worth it. The annual turnover values suggest that hotels have the potential to be profitable and improving efficiency/doing away with NPD extractions could improve things even further. Lots of people forget that significant sums were spent on renovating the hotels by NPD. It will certainly not be paying the 10% of invested amounts as agreed in the sublease but has the potential to pay 4-6% of my outstanding amount for the next 125 years.

Hence personally I would opt for option 2 and try and keep the hotels running. If the hotels turn out not to be profitable they could be sold at a later date. This is all under the assumption that the court will not declare the leases void on the basis that the whole thing was an unregulated collective invesment scheme (fraud).

AnotherJoe

npd_investor wrote: »

Personally I think the hotels are marketed well below market value and the amount left after subtracting all the costs will not be worth it.
Since they are sold in the open market even if they truly are being advertised below "market price" , they will eventually sell for more when buyers realise their true value.
You cant complain they don't get "market value" because what they are ultimately sold for IS market value, if you think they will only be sold for what they are being advertised for, that is their true value.
Hence personally I would opt for option 2 and try and keep the hotels running. If the hotels turn out not to be profitable they could be sold at a later date. This is all under the assumption that the court will not declare the leases void on the basis that the whole thing was an unregulated collective invesment scheme (fraud).

If they can't be run profitably (which wouldn't be a surprise with the investors payments acting as a boat anchor) then who would buy them and why ? And maybe this is why they are being advertised at the prices they are.

If a judge rules the leases invalid do you think you and other investors can claim successfully against your conveyancers ? I think you, using NPDs solicitors for that, are in with a good shout

npd_investor

AnotherJoe wrote: »

If they can't be run profitably (which wouldn't be a surprise with the investors payments acting as a boat anchor) then who would buy them and why ? And maybe this is why they are being advertised at the prices they are.

If a judge rules the leases invalid do you think you and other investors can claim successfully against your conveyancers ? I think you, using NPDs solicitors for that, are in with a good shout

Just to clarify: The advertised prices are with vacant possession. The asking price is based on the assumption that a judge will invalidate the leases. They cannot sell the hotels with the leases in place but they can market them.

AnotherJoe

npd_investor wrote: »

Just to clarify: The advertised prices are with vacant possession. The asking price is based on the assumption that a judge will invalidate the leases. They cannot sell the hotels with the leases in place but they can market them.

Interesting. I presume you mean they do not wish to sell them with leases because they are practically worthless with, rather than they are legally not allowed to sell them ?

npd_investor

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Interesting. I presume you mean they do not wish to sell them with leases because they are practically worthless with, rather than they are legally not allowed to sell them ?

I meant to say they cannot legally sell them the way they are currenly marketed (with vacant possession). The leases will need to be declared void in court prior to completing a sale.

AnotherJoe

npd_investor wrote: »

I meant to say they cannot legally sell them the way they are currenly marketed (with vacant possession). The leases will need to be declared void in court prior to completing a sale.

Same difference? eg they could sell them without vacant possession but they would be worth very little due to potential "bed blockers" , eg payments due to leaseholders, and legal complexities.

mariosas

Hi guys,
I would like to join forces to fill a claim against Metis Law . Witch lawyers are you using ? I can see NPD_Investor already done it . Would it make sense to do collective claim?

npd_investor

mariosas wrote: »

Hi guys,
I would like to join forces to fill a claim against Metis Law . Witch lawyers are you using ? I can see NPD_Investor already done it . Would it make sense to do collective claim?

A collective claim against the sollicitors and conveyancers is being prepared. You can get in touch with Penningtons Manches Cooper (https://www.penningtonslaw.com/people/k-o/david-niven) to join the group. Also recommend joining the closed facebook/whatsapp groups. A lot of useful information is being shared there..

Kesie

NPD_Investor: I would appreciate it if you could post a link to the facebook group that you alluded to.
And thanks for the updates: I am a fellow investor who was unable to attend the Duff and Phelps meeting in London.