Some good points here. South Pacific, like any developer, will be putting its business interests first and the recent voluntary insolvency of the Adelaide development is part of that.It's really interesting to read the comments from the people here on the forum.
I do have some experience with South Pacific and know some about the situation of their developments.
We have brought South Pacific in front of the court related to an investment. Yes, we won in court. The insolvency of the SP development gave us however some new challenges.
I read on this forum that SP might restart construction of some developments even if they are in a insolvency process. This will not happen. From a legal point of view, even if South Pacific may intend to resume construction works, at the present time there is no possibility for South Pacific or anyone else to propose such an action. The law stipulates that the steps in the insolvency proceedings have to be carried in a certain order, so SP can't do anything when the insolvency proceedings have started.
I do have some free advices for you all, and I would like to say that I don't care whether any of you believe in what I am writing:
1. Don't listen to anyone that have had relations to MRI. MRI and their representatives are incompetent. If you have done transactions with them you might get problems with romanian tax authorities. We have had our share of problems, so I know from our experience.
I understand Nicola is a former MRI-connection, so my advice, is to not listen and trust what she say.
2. Don't choose lawyer because he or she is cheapest. If you should have any hope for a good solutions on your problems, you need a good lawyer. My advice is to go for a reputable local lawyer. I know, because we have used a bigger law firm with very good lawyers, and they have won all their disputes with SP in front of the court.
3. Don't believe South Pacific in all they say. Our experience is that they show no respect for a written agreement unless it's in their interest. I don't consider South Pacific to be reputable and serious company / group, and I would think twice before making investments with them again.
I also agree that, in the current market (and independently of the insolvency proceedings being under the supervision of the syndic (bankruptcy) judge),it is difficult to see South Pacific continuing with constructions, as the demand remains thin. Any talk of constructions is mostly PR.
As for lawyers, size does not matter so much as costs relative to the overall economic assessment of what can be recovered - the arbitration claims for a refund based on breach of contract are 100% clear, so any sensible lawyer could have achieved this, not just a more expensive one.