Adrian Delia/Mgarr Developments Ltd €7.2 million constitution of debt: the public deed

Published: August 11, 2017 at 11:03pm

10 Comments Comment

  1. alex says:

    Let us please put everything in perspective here. Adrian Delia only owns 9% of the shares in the above mentioned company.

    Moreover, to really assess the financial situation of this organisation, we need to have a look at it’s Balance Sheet and see the total value of it’s assets and liabilities.

    • Here we go again: explaining the basics to Maltese adults who had the privilege of what was supposed to be a good education.

      Owning 9% of the shares does not mean you are liable for just 9% of the debt.

      When the owners of a company take on a business loan – especially a massive loan of this nature – the banks make them PERSONALLY liable for the full amount. Haven’t you ever seen those notices in the newspapers of businessmen’s homes to be sold by judicial auction? That’s why it happens.

      The bank does not distinguish between the shareholders who own 9% and those who own 40%. All are liable, jointly and severally.

      The constitution of debt is IN SOLIDUM. This means that the bank can choose to go after just one of the shareholders – even if he owns just 9% – if it deems fit, and doesn’t need to justify its decision. The bank is interested in getting its money and not in apportioning the debt between the directors/shareholders according to the extent of their shareholding.

      The bank wants its 7.2 million euros and the 8% interest piling up on that. It is not interested in who pays what and will go after all the individuals or just one of them – wherever it thinks it can get its money.

      That’s what jointly and severally means. That’s what in solidum means.

      And don’t let him tell you otherwise. He tried it with me and I flipped.

      • Evarist Saliba says:

        You are very patient in going over and over again explaining what is so simple to understand.

      • I tell myself to remember that most people didn’t have the advantages I had in learning about these things by a sort of osmosis from childhood from listening to the adult conversations all around me – you pick it up without being aware of it – and so I am patient.

        I could, of course, tell myself that in adulthood there is no excuse for not knowing things, as you are no longer at school and can’t still blame your parents, but I don’t.

  2. You can’t, because the last published accounts are four years old. But you can go online and check out the available documents at the Companies Registry. Most of the asset value of the company is vested in the land on which the flats are now built: in other words, worthless for resale purposes, because the flats are owned by third parties.

  3. What is the document uploaded above, Audrey? Jesus wept.

  4. I did not write anywhere that the loans are unsecured.

    I’m sorry, but I stopped reading at your remark about the book asset value. Do you understand that most of that is vested in the value of the land on which the flats are built? That’s right, the land and not the flats themselves. The land was valued before the flats were built and sold to third parties, and the value left unchanged since that happened in 2006.

    The land on which the flats are built is now worth practically nothing, because nobody needs or wants land with 40 flats owned by different people built on top of it.

  5. Stephen borg says:

    So now you are accusing the auditors of false accounting ?? I can assure you the unsold flats are worth several million more than the outstanding loans. You have got this seriously wrong, be woman enough to admit it. Highly unlikely I suspect !

  6. Do grow up. That was before I had acquired the actual deed but knew it had no hypothecs on it. I have since published the deed and written about it in full detail.

    Clearly, you haven’t a clue.

Leave a Comment