Of course, this is again an ugly discussion for the affected company. Especially because the rapporteurs do not necessarily shine with qualified expertise. They do not want to and need to, because if they had specialist knowledge, the story might not have existed in large parts.
But to make it clear: The fact that the company is likely to have made mistakes here is probably clear to everyone. Perhaps it was a mistake to hire the famous law firm Höcker.
At the very least, it was a mistake that the company’s statement pointed out: „one should not quote from the letter“. What a bullshit! What should such „mouth-forbid“ letters do? Do not these reinforce the impression „that there is something to hide?
Unfortunately, the reporting is characterized by a great deal of superficiality, especially with regard to the knowledge of the subject „heritage property“. You can not just buy a property there and then „clean up“ as you like.
Believe me, I have 20 years of professional experience in it, I know what I’m talking about. I have been able to implement almost no project in the historic preservation area without delay, because something came during the renovation always in between, which one – before one could continue to renovate – with the competent monument protection authority had to have and approve.
Also, you must have sold all the apartments before you start to redevelop, otherwise the tax depreciation „flutes“, because buyers of such a monument property buy a share of land, a share of the old building substance and then issue a rehabilitation order, according to the brokers and developers Regulation is settled.
This simply means that the purchaser of the property does not have to pay anything at any time that has not already been structurally implemented. The developer is in financial advance, not the customer.
Customers too have complained about the company in recent years. We contacted the company „quietly and calmly“ and found a solution for the angry customers. Currently, I do not know of a customer who would not have got his money when he wanted to dissolve the purchase contract or for which there was not another satisfactory solution.
As far as the investor situation in Asia or England is concerned, we can not comment because we neither know any investor there nor can we assess the legal situation of the investors there.