## The land sellers thought they made a great deal, but lost large sums.
– Hasn’t led anyone astray, says the controversial investor.

The owners of a total of 12 plots of land in Eastern Norway that were sold to the company Eplehagen Eiendom AS are now receiving a new round of bad news.

they have become well used to that.

The married couple fight for their millions

It didn’t work out that way. Now the trustees in the bankruptcy state that Solvang and the company Cru asset Management have not settled for themselves.

Did not pay

Estate manager Johan Henrik Nossum writes in an e-mail that the estate has sold ten of the twelve properties – for a total of 66.7 million. Of this, Cru asset Management has bought six properties for a total of NOK 44 million.

– For six agreed property transfers, Cru Asset Management AS has not paid the purchase price in time, Nossum states in the email.

Housing Authorities Kept in the Dark?

Questions are being raised about whether housing authorities were intentionally left unaware of key details during recent property transactions. According to reports, a purposeful strategy was employed to manage details flow.

“ItS a pure business strategy,” says Røste. “I don’t want to say we misled them, but providing full transparency would have created more work for them. We might absorb any extra costs ourselves if that’s what it takes.”

The situation isn’t straightforward. It wasn’t simply a case of authorities passively accepting deals. The company also purchased properties with existing legal issues – encumbrances that hadn’t been cleared – and some that weren’t even part of the initial agreement.

This raises concerns about due diligence and the level of information shared with those responsible for overseeing affordable housing initiatives. One might suggest a lack of transparency could hinder effective oversight and possibly lead to unfavorable outcomes for both the authorities and the communities they serve.

Røste maintains the approach was a calculated risk, prioritizing efficiency and potentially minimizing disruption. Though, critics argue that open communication is crucial for building trust and ensuring accountability in these types of deals.