Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
RodCrosby

Lawyers Advice Needed, Please

Recommended Posts

In December 2003, I contracted to purchase an off-plan apartment in a

northern city, as did approx 50 other investors. The site had been acquired

by company M, and we exchanged contracts with company N, which was connected

to company M.

The property marketers, company P, recommended that we use solicitors H(a

major northern legal practice.) Deposits and conveyancing fees were paid to

solicitor H, and contracts were exchanged. The contract stipulated that if

the apartment was not completed within 24 months, the investor would be

entitled to have their deposit returned.

Nothing has been built. The site is just a clear site(previous building was

demolished by company N 12 months ago.)

Now solicitor H is writing to me to state that company N, who we contracted

with, has sold the site back to company M, and as a result our contracts are

void. They say that company M are offering two possible alternatives:

a) they return our deposits at such time that they find another buyer for the site(no

timescale given)

b} we contract again with them at a higher price than the original contract!

Solicitors H also say "it is their duty" to tell us that none of this would

have been possible but for the oversight by solicitors H in FAILING TO

REGISTER OUR TITLES with the Land Registry!!! They are continuing to

"negotiate" with companies M and N to "protect our interests" but advise

that we seek independent legal advice.

Now marketing company P, which AFAIK is unconnected with M, N, or H, and

includes individuals who invested in the development themselves, are

suggesting that we all join together to seek legal advice. They suspect

solicitor H has no chance of obtaining anything from M or N and are just

manoevering to cover their own liabilty, in the hope that some investors

will continue to instruct them in pursuing the unattractive options a) or

b}.

Can someone say who is liable here? To me solicitors H left a wide open

goal, allowing N to void the contract. What should we be seeking? Marketers

P are suggesting that we are entitled to our deposits PLUS the notional

uplift in prices on the flats had they been built.

What a mess!

Please, NO smart-aleck comments. I'm now a convinced bear....

Edited by RodCrosby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a lawyer, although not a specialist land lawyer.

There are a couple of aspects of your post that confuse me. It seems to me that N's decision to sell the land back to M does not mean that the contract is void, but that N is in breach of contract (although of course this depends on the contract). Clearly it is now impossible for N to complete their side of the contract but this is because N has taken action that makes this impossible. Does the contract say anything about this eventuality? Has your lawyer explained why this is an issue of the contract being void rather than N being in breach. At first sight, and this clearly depends on the terms, I would have thought that you could sue N under the contract for breach of contract and so obtain your deposit, interest, expenses and possibly other damages. Is N sovent?

I don't understand how your title could be registered at the land registry when you have not completed and so have not obtained title. Do they mean some form of charge or caution?

I would also suggest that you look at Motley Fool and post the question on their legal issues and practical property investing boards. Lots of lawyers/experienced property investors post there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. The relevant part of Solicitor H's letter to me is:-

We are deeply concerned as to the motives behind the transfer from N to M and, accordingly, have sought the advice of a leading Barrister (Queen’s Counsel) to determine what action needs to be taken to protect your interests.

It appears that both N and M are connected companies and that the sale of the development site to M has possibly been undertaken in a deliberate attempt to avoid N having to fulfil its obligations in its Contract with yourself and other apartment purchasers. A letter has therefore been sent from this firm to solicitors for M expressing our concerns and warning them of the action we propose to take. Ultimately we will be seeking to overturn the sale to M so that your Purchase Contract cannot be voided.

Although we are doing everything we can to remedy the situation, it is our duty to inform you that it would not have arisen if we had registered appropriate notices of your interest in the development site with the Land Registry, prior to M’s purchase. We have now submitted notices to protect your interest against any further dealing with the site by M. You should, however, seek independent legal advice on this matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, NO smart-aleck comments. I'm now a convinced bear....

not yet your not.

wait till you lose your deposit.....

jeez. take the deposit back. its only 1x flat right ?

whats the big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not yet your not.

wait till you lose your deposit.....

jeez. take the deposit back. its only 1x flat right ?

whats the big deal.

Yes, I know. But I'm looking for advice on "how" to get my deposit back, plus anything else I can get for the hassle....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks that clears some of those questions up.

Something that you will have to consider is whether you want to complete the deal (assuming that they can 'un-do' the deal between M and N) or simply want your money back (with any additional expenses). If it is simply the latter then you need to consider whether or not you can sue N under the contract. The key questions for this action are (1) does N have any money to meet any claims and (2) how strong is your position under the contract: what precisely do N agree to do and on what terms do they hold your deposit?

If, as I suspect might be the case, N has divested itself of its assets to avoid meeting claims such as yours, or if you want to go ahead with the deal, then the solicitors seem to be right that this will be complex. The difficulty is that the law views companies as separate entities and therefore not liable for each other's claims even when they are in a close relationship. In extreme circumstances you can 'pierce the corporate veil' (i.e. get at the parent company) but you have to show particular facts e.g. fraud. This could be complex and risky, depending on the facts and whether M fights the case. Are you liable for the costs of hiring this QC? Make sure that they don't run up costs that you don't want to incur.

Given the problems with the above you may well find that the most efficient thing to do is to sue the solicitors in negligence. You would have to show that they have fallen below the standard accepted by solicitors of appropriate expertise. Depending on the precise facts, it sounds as if you may have a reasonable chance here - essentially you have to show that a competent professional would have registered the notice and would have done so in the time available). I strongly suggest that you get independent legal advice. If the case is clear they might not fight and as they are backed by the solicitors' indemnity fund you have a good chance of getting your cash back. If you do win then the court will give you damages to put you in the position that you would have been in if they hadn't been negligent. A settlement out of court should be along these lines too.

I should say that these are my initial thoughts based on very little information so don't rely on them (i.e. don't sue me too if it goes wrong!!) but I hope that they are useful in putting together your initial thoughts. My strongest advice would be to go and talk to a lawyer who does professional negligence and commercial contract law. They should be able to tell you if it is worth pursing pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

company M has no right to hold your deposit money. they can only do two things. complete the contract (which they have failed) or return your funds. they cant cook the money about as they wish. if they are bust, sue H for gross negligence.

its an open and shut case.

a joe average property lawyer will do.

-which is where you go to next.....

+ look at a claim for punitive damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that you will have to consider is whether you want to complete the deal (assuming that they can 'un-do' the deal between M and N) or simply want your money back (with any additional expenses). If it is simply the latter then you need to consider whether or not you can sue N under the contract. The key questions for this action are (1) does N have any money to meet any claims and (2) how strong is your position under the contract: what precisely do N agree to do and on what terms do they hold your deposit?

>>I don't want to complete the deal, for various reasons. I was expecting to complete in 2 months time, which is now impossible. Why should I have to complete in another year or two, when the great HPC will probably mean I'm forced to complete on a property worth less than the contract. I just want my money(plus anything else I can get) ASAP. I presume N has some money, the value of the site they sold to M, but no-one knows at the moment. The contract with N stated that I would get a flat off them within 2 years or my deposit back.

If, as I suspect might be the case, N has divested itself of its assets to avoid meeting claims such as yours, or if you want to go ahead with the deal, then the solicitors seem to be right that this will be complex. The difficulty is that the law views companies as separate entities and therefore not liable for each other's claims even when they are in a close relationship. In extreme circumstances you can 'pierce the corporate veil' (i.e. get at the parent company) but you have to show particular facts e.g. fraud. This could be complex and risky, depending on the facts and whether M fights the case. Are you liable for the costs of hiring this QC? Make sure that they don't run up costs that you don't want to incur.

>>You're right. I guess solicitor H engaged the QC just as much to cover his own ass, as mine. There has been no suggestion of costs.

Given the problems with the above you may well find that the most efficient thing to do is to sue the solicitors in negligence. You would have to show that they have fallen below the standard accepted by solicitors of appropriate expertise. Depending on the precise facts, it sounds as if you may have a reasonable chance here - essentially you have to show that a competent professional would have registered the notice and would have done so in the time available). I strongly suggest that you get independent legal advice. If the case is clear they might not fight and as they are backed by the solicitors' indemnity fund you have a good chance of getting your cash back. If you do win then the court will give you damages to put you in the position that you would have been in if they hadn't been negligent. A settlement out of court should be along these lines too.

>>Yes, I guess this is where it will ultimately end. H on the phone was cagey, mentioning he had to be careful what he said because of "the underwriters." A point here though is: are we likely to obtain more from H (negligence, damages etc) than N(simple return of deposit.)

I should say that these are my initial thoughts based on very little information so don't rely on them (i.e. don't sue me too if it goes wrong!!) but I hope that they are useful in putting together your initial thoughts. My strongest advice would be to go and talk to a lawyer who does professional negligence and commercial contract law. They should be able to tell you if it is worth pursing pretty quickly.

>>The property marketer P wants us to all come together with him and he has had initial discussions with Seddons solicitors, London. They seem a class firm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, your Solicitor should have ensured that your deposit would be safe. Normally deposits are held by the vendor's Solicitors as 'stakeholder' which means it should still be safely tucked away in the Solicitor's Client account (and therefore recoverable).

Most developers try to insist that you pay the deposit to their Solicitors as 'agents'. This means that they can use it towards the costs of construction. Your Solicitor should only agree to this if you are protected by adequate NHBC insurance from exchange of contracts. Provided the builder is registered with the NHBC the policy provides for the return of the deposit if the builder should go bust, for example.

Yes, I raised this with H at the time of exchange. The developers got the deposits as agents, and the contract did mention the NHBC or Zurich insurance to cover the builder. Problem - N never seemed to be able to engage the builder. They were giving out flannel for over a year that they were "in negotiations with Barnfield" but work never started.... Something fishy was going on....

company M has no right to hold your deposit money. they can only do two things. complete the contract (which they have failed) or return your funds. they cant cook the money about as they wish. if they are bust, sue H for gross negligence.

its an open and shut case.

a joe average property lawyer will do.

-which is where you go to next.....

+ look at a claim for punitive damages.

My local solicitor says H, a legal 500, hundred-year-old firm, posted profits of £42 million last year! I'd love to take them to the cleaners. We could start a new thread. "How to make money in a HPC. Employ a ****** solicitor, then sue him!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Messy. I am a finance lawyer not a litigator or property lawyer and this is not legal advice in any way, shape or form merely my observations on the original post. RET's comments generally seem sensible to me. In addition:

1. You look to have a good claim in negligence against H for failure to register the contract as an estate contract or lodge a caution or notice of some type at the Land Regstry (or to do or maintain a priority search). You seem also to have a good chance of a breach of contract claim against N (and possibly an "inducing breach of contract claim" against M). The first is independent of the second and is broadly as RET suggests based on the reasonable standards expected of H. The breach of contract claim would depend on the terms of your sale contract - what does it say? Is there any provision legally entitling N to abort or unwind your sale and transfer the property away (with or without your depisit being returned)? If so, H should have advised you of that and the associated risks too before you bought (possibly negligent if they didn't). If not then I struggle to see how N can do this without breaching contract. If it has and M was aware of the sales there may be an action against M for inducing a breach of contract by N.

2. Even if N was on safe ground contractually (although I hope not for your sake!), in "equity" you may potentially have a good claim on the land as M would have been aware of your contracts and could not argue it was a bona fide purchase of the property without notice of your interests. ie so while M may be legal owner, you may be the beneficial owners. Now that H has registered (belatedly) noone is likely to touch the land with a bargepole if M tried to sell on in any way which may be of comfort to you.

3. The solicitor is probably not taking QC's advice for your benefit alone but in order to cover its own position (50 x deposits plus interest and costs etc is quite a sum). When a solicitor suggests you take independent advice you MUST - there is usually a very good reason. To counter another reply do not go to "joe average property lawyer" - this is going to be a complex case and you need a bloody good (ie highly rated or recommended) and efficient commercial litigator and/or commercial lawyer with negligence claims experience.

4. The solvency of M and N may be a factor - it may not be worth pursuing N or M if they are worth nothing or have no assets which is why you need to look both at the potential negligence claim and the possible breach of contract claim. Do not let H confuse the two routes. It is in H's interest for you (or they) to succeed first in having the N-M deal unwound and the property back in N's name - if N did not subsequently return your deposits under the contract because it is (or becomes) insolvent you are up the proverbial creek ie you always faced that risk and it was not H's fault (unless you could show that N would not have been insolvent in Dec 2005 had any delay due to H's negligence not been present - v tough that).

Do not waste time but discuss with other investors/call a meeting and instruct a good lawyer - but agree a brutal fee deal with him upfront (that's what clients do to me!). Do not skimp on this - peanuts and monkeys etc. The good news is it sounds as though you have some good possible grounds (!) but the bad is that you aren't likely to see any money back for a long time even if you are on solid ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE.... The marketers P have negotiated a settlement offer from Solicitors B, who are now representing Solicitors H and/or their Insurers. I have tried to obtain legal advice, but the costs are prohibitive. I've been quoted £1000-1500 just to OK this settlement. Is there anyone who can give some advice. I am minded to settle, as are all the other individuals in this predicament. I am simply asking, does it do what it says on the tin, and if agreed, what further comeback if any am I exposed to? Presumably by signing a notice of recission, the orginal Solicitors become the "owners" of the original contract, and any further litigation is a matter for them, and we are out of it?

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Sirs,

Apartment 24, Block 1, Floor 3

We write to inform you that we act on behalf of H in connection with the purchase of the above apartment.

With H we have been trying to resolve matters on your behalf with M in an attempt to put you in the same position you would have been if H had registered a UN1 on your behalf prior to the sale of the site from N to M. So far this has not proved to be possible.

Therefore, we are writing to see if we can resolve matters with you.

The structure of what we propose is as follows:

1. A sum in respect of compensation for costs, interest, loss of bargain, or expenses you have suffered, etc as a result of the failure to register a UN1.

2. The repayment of the deposit which you paid, at the end of February 2007.

3. A transfer to H of all your rights in the purchase contract and any cause of action which you have arising out of the contract.

4. Your agreement to remove the UN1 registered after the transfer between N and M.

The offer that we are making on behalf of our client is contained in the attached Settlement Agreement for you to sign and return if you are happy with it.

You have already been advised to seek independent legal advice on this matter. We repeat again that you should seek independent legal advice on this matter.

The offer made in this letter will only be effective if a minimum number of all purchasers for whom H acted accept the settlement. For your information, there were 42 apartments purchased by 30 purchasers.

If we are unable to achieve this settlement, then H will come off the record as your solicitors as they have been unable to rectify the position on your behalf. Therefore, we must ask that your notice of acceptance or rejection is received by us by 26 May 2006. If you wish to accept, please sign and return the Settlement Agreement to P. H have asked P to hold the contracts to your order pending our calculation of the total number of acceptances. In the event that there are an insufficient number of acceptances, H will ask P to return the Settlement Agreement to you and there will be no settlement. In the event of the minimum number being achieved, H will ask P to execute all accepted offers that they hold on behalf of the purchasers by the deadline date. We will then pay out the monies in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. You have been advised to seek independent legal advice and we repeat that you should do so.

We await hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

B Solicitors

THIS AGREEMENT is made the day of 2006

BETWEEN:

1. Rod Crosby … (“Mr Crosby”)

and

2. H LLP … (“the Solicitors”)

WHEREAS:

1. In or about December 2003, Mr Crosby entered into a contract (“the Contract”) with N Limited (“the Original Developer”) for the purchase off-plan of Apartment 24, Block 1, Floor 3, … to be constructed as part of the development of a building formerly forming the site of X (“the Development”), and paid a deposit therefore to the Original Developer (“the Deposit”).

2. The Contract was varied by a supplementary agreement made between the Original Developer and Mr Crosby. All references below to “the Contract” are to the Contract as so varied. (not applicable. Some did vary the contract to give them more time. I did not.)

3. The Solicitors acted on behalf of Mr Crosby on his Contract. The Solicitors did not enter a Unilateral Notice 1 (“UN1”) at the Land Registry in respect of the Contract.

4. Pursuant to an Agreement (“the Sale Agreement”) dated the 11th day of March 2005 between the Original Developer, M Limited (“the New Developer”) and one Z (“Z”) as Guarantor, the Development was transferred for valuable consideration to the New Developer.

5. By reason of the fact that no UN1 had been registered the New Developer contends that it is not bound by the Contract.

6. Between 15-20 July 2005 the Solicitors entered a UN1 at the Land Registry in respect of the Contract.

7. The parties have reached the agreement set out below to settle any claims between them arising out of the matters aforesaid.

8. The Solicitors have advised Mr Crosby to seek independent legal advice before entering into this Agreement.

NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Within 14 days of execution of this Agreement the Solicitors will pay £7,500 to Mr Crosby.

2. Mr Crosby hereby transfers to the Solicitors the benefit of the Contract including (but not limited to) the right to enforce the same against the Original Developer and/or the New Developer and to recover the Deposit, together with such rights as Mr Crosby may have under the Sale Agreement against the Original Developer and/or the New Developer and/or Z.

3. The Solicitors hereby indemnify Mr Crosby in respect of any losses or reasonable legal costs which he may incur as a result of any action taken against Mr Crosby by reason of the registration of the UN1.

4. On or before 28 February 2007 and in addition to the sum set out in Clause 1 the Solicitors will pay to Mr Crosby £13,850 the amount of the Deposit without interest irrespective of whether the Solicitors have by then recovered the Deposit from the Original Developer and/or the New Developer and/or Z. In the event that the Solicitors have recovered the Deposit from the Original Developer and/or the New Developer prior to 28 February 2007 then the Solicitors will forward the Deposit immediately upon receipt.

5. Mr Crosby will take all steps required of him by the Solicitors in order to pursue any steps the Solicitors wish to take to enforce their rights under the Contract and/or the Sale Agreement including but not limited to:

(i) signing a letter of rescission to the Original Developer in the form attached at Appendix 1;

(ii) subscribing to any application required either to remove the UN1 or to replace the Solicitors as the party entitled to the protection thereof.

In relation to (i)-(ii) above any costs incurred by Mr Crosby in performing these specific steps are not recoverable from the Solicitors. If Mr Crosby is requested by the Solicitors to furnish them with any evidence required in the course of any proceedings taken with regard to the Contract or the registration of the UN1 or any other steps in addition to those listed at (i)-(ii) then the Solicitors will reimburse Mr Crosby for any reasonable costs he incurs which exceed the value of £150.

6. The terms of this Agreement are in full and final settlement of all claims and matters arising including costs and interest now and in the future between the parties in respect of the Solicitors’ appointment to act on behalf of Mr Crosby in relation to the Contract and the registration of the UN1.

7. Mr Crosby and the Solicitors agree to keep this Agreement confidential save in the event that the Solicitors wish to use the information in the Agreement as part of their proceedings against the Original Developer the New Developer and Z arising out of the Contract.

Executed as a Deed by ……… )

……………………………… )

……………………………… ) ………………………………

)

)

)

Executed as a Deed by ……… )

……………………………… )

……………………………… ) ………………………………

)

)

)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prevail on you to find out as much as you can about the respective parties and their business interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prevail on you to find out as much as you can about the respective parties and their business interests.

At this stage we have gone beyond this. I think most people want to settle, the Solicitors H have essentially admitted liability. I'm just asking if anyone can advise on the settlement contract. Is it watertight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would take it. They have a cheek not paying interest on the deposit to be returned in Feb 2007, I suppose they would say this is covered by the 7.5k. At least this contract amounts to something in your hand which looks enforceable, and has no obvious holes in it. What more would you get if you took on the cost & stress of suing H for negligence, assuming you win? No much, probably. The cost & complexity of suing the companies is too horrible to contemplate.

However you should take legal advice, and my comments should not be construed as legal advice. Of course if you were going to chase this complex case through the courts you would need a very good lawyer, as stated above. On the other hand, if you can find a low-cost high street solicitor to OK the settlement contract for a modest fee that at least gives you an insurance policy (you can sue him if anything goes wrong).

Edited by contrarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second contrarian's comment.

As above, I cannot give advice, so I'll imagine I was in your situation and say what I would do.

Unless I'd still be thousands out of pocket after accepting the deal, I'd figure that this was an excellent settlement considering that at times over the past few months I was wondering if was going to see any of my deposit back. To contest further could involve me in open-ended legal fees which may well swamp the original deposit involved.

I would not worry in any way whatsoever whether there has been some conspiracy or underhand move against me. I would focus only on the recovery of my deposit, not loss of possible profits.

I would take legal advice on the proposed settlement. I would not trust advice from anyone on an internet discussion forum. Since I am in contact with other depositors involved in the deal, I would expect that we can share the cost of this advice between us. This obviously must be done as a matter of urgency, but the question to be asked of the hired solicitor is very simple: "If I sign the proposed settlement, is there any possibility, even remote, of any liability coming back to me. Am I free of this contract in every respect." I would ask for the assurance in writing.

If shared advice is not possible, I would pay the £1000-1500 to settle on a personal basis, provided I have written assurance from my solicitor that there are no comebacks and that if settlement is not agreed due to too few depositors accepting, fees would be nominal. I would calculate that I am trading £1500 against an open-ended liability. It wouldn't be worth the risk to do otherwise.

If no solicitor is prepared to give a written assurance that settlement absolves me of all liability, I would settle without taking advice, based on my assessment that the proposed agreement looks equitable.

I would relay my acceptance either through a solicitor, or by registered post, before the 26th May.

....

In short, Rod, I think you're trying to gild the lily by coming on to HPC and getting a lawyer member to OK your walk-away deal. I know it grates to shell out for legal advice, but here's a case where the trade off is worth it. I'd pay the fees, settle, and put this behind me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, FreeTrader, quite a well-balanced assessment, apart from the last comment.

Most if not all purchasers are going to agree this deal. A few have obtained legal advice. I am just pissed off that I have been quoted over £1000, just to say if the settlement is watertight. I don't think that is equitable. If the settlement had included say a token £100 towards legal costs, we would all have had an incentive to pool resources under one solicitor. The lack of this combined with the time constraint means that this is effectively impossible.

I agree that the bones of the settlement appear generous. I must take my hat off to the original marketers P, who have negotiated this on our behalf. We are fortunate that individuals within P also invested in this development, so have the incentive to get their own money back. I'd hate to think where I'd be if this was not the case....

I'm just looking for peace of mind that this will be the end of the matter. Some legally-qualified kind-soul on this forum might just appreciate my difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would take it. They have a cheek not paying interest on the deposit to be returned in Feb 2007, I suppose they would say this is covered by the 7.5k. At least this contract amounts to something in your hand which looks enforceable, and has no obvious holes in it. What more would you get if you took on the cost & stress of suing H for negligence, assuming you win? No much, probably. The cost & complexity of suing the companies is too horrible to contemplate.

However you should take legal advice, and my comments should not be construed as legal advice. Of course if you were going to chase this complex case through the courts you would need a very good lawyer, as stated above. On the other hand, if you can find a low-cost high street solicitor to OK the settlement contract for a modest fee that at least gives you an insurance policy (you can sue him if anything goes wrong).

With regard to taking independant legal advice you should contact the Law Society directly to ask them to recommend a suitable lawyer specialising in this field, they also investigate solicitors conduct and malpractice and should be better at giving you a steer through this complicated situation. It is not in the Law Societies interest to have members of the public taking legal advice and suffering financially because correct procedures have not been followed and they should have the clout to help you get sorted out.

Good Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 335 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.