Vererdi Group, a mezzanine finance group based in Brisbane, will be contacting their compensation lawyers after it announced to the Supreme Court that it earned nearly two million dollars on a property investment it made based on demonstrations that the project developers showed them on its net worth yielding surplus monies in case it defaulted.

These claims made by the funds managers are said to apply to the Kingslcliff and Gold Coast properties, which were involved in a deal that was made with Resort Corp, right before the June 2007 sub-prime mortgage catastrophe. The Resort Corp’s investment portfolio went under when the company was administered externally in 2009, and thus the Veredi Group’s need to contact compensation lawyers since they lost their investment because of this problem.

These demonstrations by the Resort Corps could also cause the need for a personal injury lawyer since the Veredi Group was injured financially by the bad investment cause by the Resort Corps since the memo they received had misleading and deceptive data in it. The lawyers will ask for a case against them for the amount they paid for their property investment, along with $680,000 as an opportunity cost. This will be done under the Australian Consumer Law’s TPA equal of the s18.

However, the defendants in the case are using a counterclaim and may be getting personal injury lawyers of their own, saying that Venerdi ought to be liable to their company due to its own breach of warranty shown in their papers that said they had assessed it on their own and were not relying on demonstrations made by the Resort Corps.

This would mean that Vererdi would have to pay any damages back due to their breach of a no reliance warranty. However, the personal injury lawyers may argue that the logic is not good, and then the defendants can make a counter claim for their own liability amount due to the fact that the alleged misleading and deceptive conduct would cancel out the claim of the plaintiff and they would have no right to any damages.

The results are that the counter claim was not allowed, but the plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended defense and a possible counter claim based on a reliance exclusion clause. The trial is expected to take place sometime in late 2014 or sometime in 2015.

This case originally appeared on Take the Law blog. You can read the original article here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *