The following table sets out a series of quick links to allow investors to:
The information in this summary does not purport to include all information concerning or related to the products and/or the properties. The summary is provided for the information of investors and has been prepared based on information sourced from Blue Chip. This information has not been verified and Meltzer Mason Heath does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this summary. Further, the information in this summary is not intended to substitute for legal and/or other advice that should be obtained by investors as to their rights, obligations and options concerning the products and/or the properties and as to which entities they may be entitled to claim against.
A number of companies referred to in this document are not in liquidation. Meltzer Mason Heath have no direct knowledge of those companies’ activities. The information (which Meltzer Mason Heath do not warrant is accurate) is included for the sake of completeness and to help investors who may have had dealings with those companies to understand their position.
Product Type |
Properties |
|
| Developments Not Proceeding or Contract to Acquire Cancelled | Developments Proceeding | |
| Mainstream/ Premium Growth. This was a traditional style property investment that automatically incorporated a lease and a property management agreement. (This product was sold from 2000 until 2008) |
Turner and Waverly (subsequently resold as Uptown) 156 unit development at Turner Street and Waverly Street, Auckland. Sold by Lanark Limited. Now in liquidation. Claims need to be submitted to the Liquidator. |
Uptown (superseded Turner & Waverly) 156 unit development at Turner Street and Waverly Street, Auckland. Vendor is developer – Norwich Limited Deposits paid in cash are held in a solicitor’s trust account. Development well underway. Completion scheduled for late 2008. |
| Income JV (Joint Venture) This was an income based product. (This product was available between 2003 and Oct 2006) |
St Martins, Symonds Street Bridge (subsequently resold as Icon) 155 unit development on the eastern side of Symonds Street Bridge, Auckland. Sold by Kingsley Limited. Now in liquidation Claims need to be submitted to the Liquidator. |
Icon Central ( superseded St Martins ), Symonds Street Bridge 155 unit development on the eastern side of Symonds Street Bridge, Auckland Vendor is developer – Paxton Pacific Limited Deposits paid in cash are held in a solicitor’s trust account. Development just started Completion scheduled for mid 2009. |
| Premium Income Product (PIP) This was an income based product which gave Blue Chip Premium Income Limited a right to call for title at the investor’s purchase price. (This product was available after Oct 2006 until mid 2007) |
Emily 149 units at Emily Place/Anzac Avenue, Auckland. Sold by Becroft Limited. Now in liquidation Claims need to be submitted to the Liquidator. |
The Chatham 70-76 Pitt Street, Auckland Vendor is developer – Greenstone Trustees Limited Deposits paid in cash are held in a solicitor’s trust account. Development scheduled to complete in late 2008 |
| Put and Call This was an income based product which gave Amelia Limited a right to call for title and the investor to put title to Amelia Limited at the investor’s cost. (This product was available after mid 2007) |
QuBa, Tapora Street, Auckland 44 units within a larger development , located on the Parnell CBD border Sold by Ilminster Limited. Now in liquidation Claims need to be submitted to the Liquidator. |
Verve, 29-31 Eden Crescent, Auckland Vendor is developer – Peron Limited Deposits paid in cash are held in a solicitor’s trust account. Development has resource consent issue. No timeframe available for commencement of development. |
| Auradale/ Dalia Rose, Gulf Harbour. 38 unsettled units Sold by Sarsen Limited (Auradale) and Denby Limited (Dalia Rose). Now in liquidation. Claims need to be submitted to the Liquidator. |
Barclay 70 -74 Albert Street, Auckland 113 sold Vendor is developer – Greenstone Trustees Limited. Deposit is held in solicitor’s trust account. Development well underway. Completion scheduled for July 2008. |
|
| Addison, Papakura, Auckland Located off Porchester Rd, lots with numbers between 336- 347, and 377 -465 Sold by Sidey Limited. Purchase contract cancelled Request return of deposit. |
Stadium, Beach Road, Auckland Central. 172 units sold Vendor is developer – Peron Limited. Deposits paid in cash are held in a solicitor’s trust account. Development well underway. Completion scheduled for early 2009. |
|
| 46 Carlos Drive, Flatbush 22 units Sold by Parley Limited. Under construction but Parley likely to default and therefore contract may be cancelled. Contact developer to negotiate “fall back” deal. |
Rosedale, 255 Rosedale Road, Albany 82 units Being developed by Marcroft Limited. Deposits paid in cash held in a solicitor’s trust account. Development not started. Completion scheduled for mid 2008. |
|
| Tawari Village Mt Eden 29 units Sold by Amelris Limited Purchase contract with developer has been cancelled. Request return of deposit. |
||
| O’Connell Street/Vulcan Lane 3 units in Vulcan Lane Sold by Whitaker Limited. Purchase contract with developer cancelled. Request return of deposit. |
||
This was the core investment product offered. It was designed for investors seeking a combination of rental income, capital growth and tax benefits.
Investors purchased a property subject to a pre existing lease to a Blue Chip subsidiary (generally, this subsidiary was either Auckland Residential Tenancies Limited or ART Apartments Limited), and entered into a property management agreement with Bribanc Property Group Limited. (All three of these companies were placed in liquidation on 8th February 2008).
A range of leases were used which included terms of:
The leases do not contain guaranteed buy back clauses. There is merely an option to purchase either at a fixed price or at a discount to registered value.
Investors would typically purchase in the name of an LAQC or their own name.
Under the leases rent was paid weekly and the costs of repairs and maintenance, but not fair wear and tear, were to be met by the lessee. The 4 year plus 2 x 2 year extension lease incorporated a feature known as Alterations Compensation Payment. The tax treatment of this payment is now in dispute with the IRD.
The properties are either:
Investors that own a settled property should terminate the lease and the property management agreement. The investor can then make arrangements for the rent to be paid directly. Unless the investor does this, the rents will continue to be paid to Auckland Residential Tenancies Limited (In Liquidation) or ART Apartments Limited (In Liquidation).
Termination of the lease can be done simply by:
There are no keys left at Bribanc. Prior to liquidation, Bribanc subcontracted its management role to the following property managers:
| Area | Property Manager with Keys |
| Whangaparaoa – Including Alverna Heights, Dalia Rose (Clea View), Auradale, Laurie Southwick Parade, Waterside but not Gulf Harbour Lodge | Harcourts Orewa Telephone 09 424 1522 |
| North Shore (other than Whangaparaoa) including Roanoke Way, Fields Parade, East Coast Road, Harkin Close, Sunset Road, The Avenues, and Kaihu Street | Harcourts Campbells Bay Telephone 09 477 0848 |
| West Auckland (Hobsonville to Block House Bay, including Avondale, Ranui, Henderson, Massey, Swanson and West Harbour) | Harcourts
Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South 09 839 1103 |
| South Auckland (everything south of the Mangere Bridge and Tamaki Estuary including Flat Bush, Papakura, Manurewa, Manukau, Papatoetoe, Weymouth, Pukekohe, Takanini, Favona | Harcourts
Papakura 09 298 2204 |
| Long Stay Properties in Auckland Central and CBD West– Hudson Brown, Beaumont Quarter/Fisher Point Drive, Kingsland, The Ascent 149 -153 Nelson St, and The Precinct 20 College Hill | Harcourts Ponsonby 09 360 7537 |
| Uptown Apartments 10 -14 Upper Queen Street | Quinovic Ponsonby 09 360 8840 |
| Long Stay Properties in Auckland Central and CBD East -The Landings Ronayne St, Ireland Road Panmure, Main Highway Ellerslie, Onehunga, Newmarket, Q Central - Liverpool Street, 210 Queen Street, The Mirage The Strand Parnell. | Harcourts Ellerslie 09 579 1074 |
| Short Stay Properties in Auckland Central including, Heritage Hotel 35 Hobson St and 22 Nelson St, Quest on Eden 50-52 Eden Street , 43 Anzac, 85 Beach Road (including long stay properties), Lighter Quay – Halsey St, The Landings – Ronayne St(including long stay properties), The Empire 21 Whitaker Place, Tetra House 85 Wakefield Street, Madison 135-145 Symonds Street, Portland Towers 62 Queen Street, Hudson Brown - Mahuhu Crescent and Te Taou Drive(short Stay units only), The Vibe 16 Market Place | First Street Property Management Limited 09 309 5105 |
When contacting the holder of the keys, investors should take with them copies of the original sale and purchase and lease documents and any termination notice.
Investors should be aware that any underlying tenant will have certain rights and the investor takes possession of the property subject to those rights. There are laws protecting the rights of tenants and unless the investor is familiar with these a professional property manager should be appointed to manage the tenancy on the investor’s behalf. (It may be convenient to use the manager that already has possession of the keys).
When terminating a lease the investor should also:
There are additional complications when terminating a short stay lease. Unless the replacement arrangement complies with IRD requirements, then a “change of use” may be deemed to have occurred and investors may be required to pay GST on the lower of the cost or value of the property. This GST issue will not arise if the property is part of a hotel pool or similar arrangement and in other cases may be avoided by entering into a replacement lease with a provider of services similar to those offered by ART Apartments Limited. Investors should obtain professional advice prior to terminating any short stay lease in order that they are aware of any GST implications that may arise.
Many clients have invested in properties that are yet to settle. These properties tend to break down into three groups:
This product was a complex enhancement to the standard mainstream and premium growth products that enabled investors to direct capital gain, income and tax benefits, other than in accordance with share ownership/proportional ownership of the property. As such it provided a significant advancement in flexibility of structuring using an LAQC.
The structure involved ownership of an investment property resting in a bare trust with the rights and obligations in respect of the property split between two participants. The allocation of rights and obligations were determined under a joint venture agreement – one party generally seeking income, the other generally seeking capital gain.
Typically, the income seeking party (the investor) would provide the debt (both in terms of deposit funded against other security and the balance of the funding secured against the investment property) for which they received ongoing payments equal to interest costs on their funding plus a fee for “procuring” the debt. In exchange, the capital seeking party received a substantial portion of the tax benefits and was entitled to a substantial portion of any net sale proceeds once the income party’s borrowings had been fully repaid.
The property would be subject to a lease and property management agreement as per a standard mainstream or premium growth investment.
The arrangement had no fixed term but would be terminated by the sale of the property which could only happen if either an option under the lease was exercised or the income party passed a resolution for termination of the joint venture.
The income party was required to contribute additional funding of approximately 15-20% of the property cost. This additional funding was used to pay fees and provide a cash “pot” that was sufficient to fund the cash outflows to the income party for the first two years. The capital party undertook to ensure there were always sufficient funds within the joint venture for the income party to receive their interest and procurement fees. As such, once the additional funding had been spent the capital party needed to make cash contributions to ensure the “pot” had funds to pay the income party. Initially the product was designed to operate between individuals within the same family group – for example: parent/child or high income earner/family trust. However, it was later sold as a solution to provide income to retired people with either Blue Sky Holdings Limited, or Blue Chip Joint Ventures Limited, (both now in liquidation) undertaking the role of the capital seeking party.
Around 500 transactions were undertaken in total. Where properties have not been and will not be delivered, the potential for any capital gain has disappeared. In addition, in many cases the developer was required to fund interest payments to the Joint Venture for deposits received by “Blue Chip” and passed on to the developer; however, the developer has defaulted on this obligation. Blue Sky Holdings Limited and Blue Chip Joint Ventures Limited were unable to meet their joint venture obligations, therefore they were both placed in liquidation on 12 February 2008.
No interest was paid after this date. Payment of procurements fees had ceased some weeks earlier and investors should therefore claim against Blue Sky Holdings Limited (In Liquidation) or Blue Chip Joint Ventures Limited (In Liquidation) for any payments they did not receive up until the date of liquidation. Investors will also have accruing claims under contracts until those contracts are disclaimed or terminated and, where they are disclaimed or terminated, a claim for damages.
Investors should take legal advice as to whether, given the default under the joint venture contract, they should terminate the joint venture arrangement.
If the investor chooses to terminate the joint venture arrangement they should also terminate the lease and the property management agreement. This will provide full control of the property and will enable the investor to access the underlying rent, at least in the short term. (Where the property is short stay, professional advice should also be obtained regarding GST implications before termination of the lease).
In terminating the investor will need to:
Investors should be aware that any underlying tenant will have certain rights and the investor takes possession of the property subject to those rights. There are strict laws protecting the rights of tenants and unless the investor is familiar with these the appointment of a professional property manager to manage the tenancy on the investor’s behalf should be considered.
Investors should submit a claim against the joint venture company in liquidation for any interest or procurement fees not paid as at the date of liquidation, and any other amount they are entitled to claim.
This section relates to most of the properties in the Barclay development, 70-74 Albert Street, Auckland, and a small number in Uptown, Turner and Waverly Streets
The properties in these deals are under construction and the developer will be expecting the investor to settle when the development is complete.
Investors should consider obtaining an independent valuation of their property prior to settling, given that any lease to Auckland Residential Tenancies Limited or ART Apartments will no longer be valid. Investors can then consider the following options taking into account the current value of their properties:
Investors should obtain legal advice as to whether they have any right to recover their deposit and their obligation to settle.
Investors should submit a claim to the company in liquidation for any interest or procurement fee payments not made by Blue Sky Holdings Limited and Blue Chip Joint Ventures Limited, up until the date of liquidation and any other amount they are entitled to claim.
This category includes a number of units in Addison, Off Porchester Road with a lot number of 334 or below
Investors should submit claims for any interest or procurement fee payments not made up until the date of the liquidation by Blue Sky Holdings Limited or Blue Chip Joint Ventures Limited and any other amount they are entitled to claim;
Investors should contact the developer to see whether a fall back purchase agreement can be arranged on the basis that the Blue Chip vendor is likely to default on its obligations to the developer causing the purchase contract to be cancelled.
Investors should obtain legal advice concerning any further options that may be available to them
This category includes all investments in Turner and Waverly, Emily, St Martins, O’Connell Street, residual unsettled stock in Dalia Rose and Auradale, QuBa and certain unsettled stock in Addison.
Investors should submit claims for:
Investors should obtain legal advice concerning any further options that may be available to them.
This product was introduced in late 2006.
The product was aimed at investors with cash seeking a high yielding secure investment and was based around the concept of Blue Chip capturing the capital growth during the construction phase of a major project in exchange for which a premium return would be paid on a 10% deposit.
Investors were required to enter into two contracts:
Under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement the investor was required to either provide a bond or a deposit which was placed into the vendor’s solicitor’s trust account.
The property was subject to a lease to either Auckland Residential Tenancies Limited or ART Apartments Limited (both now in liquidation).
Under the terms of the call, Blue Chip Premium Income Limited had the right to call for it or another entity to be nominated as the purchaser under the sale and purchase agreement, at any time prior to settlement. As such the nominee would pay an amount equal to the investor’s deposit and pick up any gain on the value of the property plus the interest on any funds in the vendor’s solicitor’s trust account.
In exchange for this, the investor received an option fee in monthly instalments.
However, if Blue Chip Premium Income Limited did not exercise its call then the client would be required to settle the property subject to the lease to Auckland Residential Tenancies Limited or ART Apartments Limited, as the case may be. Should a client be required to settle, the rental in the lease was set to cover their funding costs and maintain the same $ return (which was generally around $5,000 pa). Under the lease there was a purchase option at the investor’s original cost, enabling Blue Chip to reacquire the property for on sale at a point post settlement, at its original cost.
Although designed for cash investors, in many cases the product was sold to retired people on a leveraged basis, to generate additional income. A 10% deposit would be raised by way of debt against the investor’s home. The investor received 16% on this, which covered the investor’s funding costs plus provided a return of around $5,000 pa.
Following the formation of the New Zealand head franchise operation in September 2007, all the purchase options on these deals were exercised and the fee arrangement changed. Payments were then reduced to cover interest costs only. These payments have now ceased.
Although not yet in liquidation, Blue Chip Premium Income Limited has defaulted on its obligations and will probably be placed in liquidation. Once in liquidation it is likely that the call contracts will be repudiated and therefore the calls will not settle. The developer will however be expecting the investor to settle on the property.
Any other party nominated as purchaser pursuant to the call may also be unable to settle or meet its obligations.
Given that this product was designed to provide an income stream many investors may not want to take delivery of the property. Investors may therefore either:
It is also recommend that investors seek legal advice as to their position in respect of the requirement to settle, and what claims they may have against the Blue Chip companies involved in the transactions.
The product was a modification to the Premium Income Product. The main differences being the counterparty was Amelia Limited and the investor had a put right as well as Amelia Limited’s call right.
Although not currently in liquidation, Amelia Limited has defaulted on its obligations and will probably be placed in liquidation. As such, it is likely that the put and call will be repudiated and the company will not take delivery of titles even if the put option is exercised.
The underlying developer will therefore be expecting the investor to settle on the property come the appropriate date.
Given that this product was designed to provide an income stream, investors may not want to take delivery of the property. Investors may therefore either:
It is also recommend that investors obtain legal advice as to their position in respect of the requirement to settle, and what claims and other options they may have.
This development comprised of 156 apartments and was to be located at the junction of Turner and Waverly Streets in Auckland’s CBD.
Properties were sold to investors through a company called Lanark Limited, now in liquidation.
The development was being undertaken by Rockfort, a subsidiary of Ingot Holdings Limited. The development was sold exclusively via Blue Chip during 2004 and 2005 to investors under the mainstream and joint venture products.
Rockfort was not able to proceed with the development and investors need to submit a claim to the liquidator of Lanark (those in joint ventures also need to submit claims to the relevant joint venture party).
Deposits were not held in trust, but were released in accordance with the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. In consideration for this the Investor received compensation equivalent to an interest rate of around 9% pa.
The property is now being completed by a different developer (under the name of Uptown) and has been sold to other investors. Investors in the original deal sold by Lanark may have no rights against the new developer, which is not an associated company of Blue Chip.
This development comprised of 155 apartments and was to be located on the East Side of Symonds Street.
Properties were sold to investors through a company called Kingsley Limited. This company is now in liquidation.
The development was being undertaken by a subsidiary of Ingot Holdings Limited. The development was sold exclusively via Blue Chip during 2005 and 2006 to investors under the mainstream, premium growth and the joint venture products.
Deposits were not held in trust, but were released in accordance with the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. In consideration for this the Investor received compensation equivalent to an interest rate of around 9% pa. The developer was not able to proceed with the development and investors need to submit a claim to the liquidator of Kingsley, and if in a joint venture may be also able to claim against the joint venturer.
The property is being completed by a different developer and has been sold to other investors. Investor’s in the original deal sold by Kingsley may have no rights against the new developer, which is not an associated company of Blue Chip.
This development comprised 149 apartments and was to be located between Anzac Avenue and Emily Place, Auckland Central.
Properties were sold to investors through a company called Becroft Limited. This company is now in liquidation.
The development was being undertaken by a subsidiary of Ingot Holdings Limited. The development was sold exclusively via Blue Chip between 2004 and 2006 to investors under the mainstream and the joint venture products.
Deposits were not held in trust, but were released in accordance with the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. In consideration for this the Investor received compensation equivalent to an interest rate of around 9% pa.
The developer was not able to proceed with the development and investors need to submit a claim to the liquidator of Becroft.
This development is located on Tapora Street which is off Beach Road, Auckland Central.
Ilminster Limited acquired 44 units on contract from the developer and sold these to investors under the premium growth and joint venture products.
Ilminster defaulted on the purchase agreement with the developer and the purchase contract with the developer was cancelled.
Investors need to submit a claim to the liquidator of Ilminster.
These developments are located in Gulf Harbour and were sold down by Denby Limited, now in liquidation, and Sarsen Limited, which is not presently in liquidation.
In most cases deposits were passed onto the developer. Investors have received a payment equivalent to interest at around 9% in compensation for the release of the deposits.
Some properties have delivered and settled. The purchase contracts to Denby and Sarsen for the balance of the units have been cancelled and Denby was placed in liquidation on 12 February 2008.
Investors in unsettled properties need to claim in the liquidation of Denby or make demand to Sarsen for return of their deposit.
This is an estate involving a number of developments from various developers.
Sidey Limited sold a number of units, including Units 336- 347 and 377- 445 Off Porchester Road. These units are now not proceeding. Sidey is not yet in liquidation so investors need to demand repayment of their deposit.
The remaining units are proceeding and it is recommended that investors contact the developer directly to discuss a “fall back” contract, as it is unlikely that the vendor company will meet its obligations to the developer. Failure of the relevant Blue Chip company to meet its obligations to the developer will result in the purchase contract to Blue Chip being cancelled. The developer is not under any obligation to agree a fall back contract or provide any level of discount.
This development is located in Flatbush. Pasley purchased a number of apartments within the development which were sold under the Premium Growth Product subject to a lease to Auckland Residential Tenancies Limited.
Come settlement it is likely that Pasley will default, in which case the developer will cancel the sale to Blue Chip leaving the investor with a claim against Pasley.
Investors may wish to contact the developer directly to see if they can negotiate a “fall back” purchase agreement that works for both them and the developer. Please note that the developer is not under any obligation to offer a discount.
This development was to be located on Vulcan Lane.
Amelris Limited, a subsidiary of Blue Chip, sold 3 units under the joint venture product. Deposits were collected by Amelris but were not required to be held in trust.
The purchase contract with the developer was cancelled.
Amelris is not yet in liquidation so Investors need to demand repayment of their deposit.
This development is located on Turner and Waverly Streets (It is the same development that was going to be undertaken by Ingot under the name Turner & Waverly).
The Uptown development has been sold down and the sale and purchase agreements are directly with the developer, Norwich Group. The deposits placed by investors are held in the developer’s solicitor’s trust account or were placed by way of deposit bond.
The development was largely sold under the Premium Income Product. Payments to investors under this product have now ceased.
Construction is well underway with completion expected sometime in late 2008.
Although Blue Chip Premium Income Limited has exercised its call, it is expected that this entity will go into liquidation and will not complete its calls. The developer will however still be expecting clients to settle under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
Clients should discuss with their legal counsel their obligation to settle, what other options they may have, and what claims they may have against Blue Chip Premium Income Limited and any other parties involved. Further information can be found under Premium Income Product in the Product section.
This development is located on the East side of Symonds Street. (It is the same development that was going to be undertaken by Ingot under the name St Martins).
The Icon development has been sold down and the sale and purchase agreements are directly with the developer, a subsidiary of Paxton Pacific Group. The deposits placed by investors are held in the developer’s solicitor’s trust account or were placed by way of bonds.
The development was largely sold under the Premium Income Product and Put and Call Product. Payments to investors under these products have now ceased
Although Blue Chip Premium Income Limited/Amelia Limited have exercised their calls, it is expected that they will go into liquidation and that the calls will be repudiated. The developer will however still be expecting clients to settle under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
Clients should discuss with their legal counsel their obligation to settle and what, if any, other options they may have, given the development has only just commenced. Further information can be found under Premium Income and Put and Call in the Product section.
This development is located 70- 76 Pitt Street, Central Auckland
This development has been largely sold down and the sale and purchase agreements are directly with the developer, Greenstone Trustees. The deposits placed by investors in cash are held in trust in the developer’s solicitor’s trust account.
The development was largely sold under the Premium Income Product. Payments to investors under this product have now ceased and the calls have been exercised.
Construction is well under way and it is expected that the development will be ready to settle in late 2008.
Although the calls on the Premium Income Product have been exercised it is expected that the Blue Chip Premium Income Limited will be put into liquidation and the contracts will be repudiated. As a result the call will not settle. The developer will however be expecting clients to settle under their sale and purchase agreements.
Investors should discuss with their legal counsel their obligation to settle and what claims and other options they may have. Further information can be found about Premium Income Product in the Product section.
This development is located at 29- 31 Eden Crescent.
This development was fully sold to investors under the Premium Income Product but hit resource consent delays. As such many clients were moved from this development into other developments.
Payments to investors under this product have now ceased and the calls have been exercised.
Construction has not started and unless it does start within the time periods permitted under the Resource Management Act investors will have the right to have their deposits returned. Assuming the project commences the developer will be expecting clients to settle.
Investors should discuss with their legal counsel their obligations and rights to settle or their rights to terminate the investment and what claims and other options they may have. Further information can be found about Premium Income Product in the Product section.
This development is located at 70- 74 Albert Street
This development has been fully sold down and the sale and purchase agreements are directly with the developer, Greenstone Trustees. The deposits placed in cash by investors are held in trust in the developer’s solicitor’s trust account.
The development was largely sold under the joint venture product. Payments to investors under this product have now ceased and both Blue Sky Holdings Limited and Blue Chip Joint Ventures Limited have gone into liquidation. The developer will however be expecting clients to settle under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
Investors should discuss with their legal counsel their obligation to settle and what claims and other options they may have. Further information can be found about the joint venture under the Product section
This development is located on Beach Road, and comprises 175 serviced apartments.
This development has been sold down and the sale and purchase agreements are directly with the developer, a subsidiary of the Peron Group. The deposits placed by investors are held in trust in the developer’s solicitor’s trust account or were placed by way of bonds.
The development was largely sold under the Premium Income Product. Payments to investors under this product have now ceased.
Although Blue Chip Premium Income Limited has exercised its call, it has not met its payment obligations and it is expected that it will go into liquidation shortly and the calls will be repudiated. The developer will however still be expecting clients to settle under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
Investors should discuss with their legal counsel their obligation to settle and what claims and other options they may have. Further information can be found under Premium Income Product in the product section.
This development is located at 225 Rosedale Road, Albany.
This development has been sold down and the sale and purchase agreements are directly with the developer, Marcroft. The deposits placed by investors in cash are held in trust in the developer’s solicitor’s trust account or were placed by way of deposit bonds.
At this point construction has not started.
The development was largely sold under the Premium Income Product and Premium Growth Product. Payments to investors under the Premium Income Product have now ceased and the lease in respect of the Premium Growth Product is now invalid.
Although the calls have been exercised under the Premium Income Product, given that Blue Chip Premium Income Limited has not met its payment obligations it is expected that this company will soon be put in liquidation. It is also expected that the calls will be repudiated.
The developer will however be expecting all investors to settle under the terms of the sale and purchase contract.
Clients should discuss with their legal counsel their obligation to settle and what, if any claims and other options they may have given the development has not commenced. Further information can be found in the Product section under mainstream Premium Growth and Premium Income Products.