Jsysco

According to the Las Vegas Business Press (in an article published on the 12th May), the action was brought against Harcourt Developments on 30th April this year. A whole month before the States discussed this.

I found this out by typing "Harcourt Developments" into Google noting an $800m deal in Las Vegas, then searching for "Harcourt Developments Las Vegas", the story crops up on the second page.

Surely if you're about to engage in a 150 year lease with a company you do a little bit of background work at the very least, using tools and resources a little more reliable and informative than Google.

Indeed, the JEP report that Deputy Baudains raised the issue during the discussion in the States but was given "categorical assurance" by Frank Walker that no lawsuit existed:

Ministers ?use bullying tactics? News This Is Jersey

Bundy

Leaving Jersey really is an option people will look at now. This IMPROVEMENT! will end up like every other big job in the island and cost almost twice as much as originally quoted. To say i'm becoming disillusioned is an understatement

__________________
THE SHIRT DOESN'T SHRINK TO FIT INFERIOR PLAYERS

crono

For Frank Walker to say he knew nothing about this court action is scandalous, of course he knew about it. This is just more proof of the corruption going on within our states. The sooner the UK steps in and does something the better.

Jodie

If Frank Walker did not know about this he should resign now.

crono

In tonights paper it says the States were told 3 weeks before they agreed to this development about the impending court case. So Frank Walker has rubbished his inteligence in favour of making a lot of money

Hobbes

Taken from;

Vegas lawsuit: Ministers were warned News This Is Jersey



By Elaine Byrne

THREE States ministers, including Chief Minister Frank Walker, were e-mailed information about the Las Vegas lawsuit against developers Harcourt almost three weeks before last week’s big Waterfront debate.

But Senator Walker did not act on the information because, he says, ministers were assured by Harcourt director Patrick Power on the eve of last week’s debate that no such lawsuit existed.

The Chief Minister has now insisted that the development will not go ahead until a new investigation into Harcourt has been carried out.

After receiving Harcourt’s assurance, Senator Walker in turn assured States Members last week that Harcourt were not involved in any civil actions in the US and recommended that the States should approve the deal with Harcourt to create the proposed new £330 multi-million pound Esplanade Square financial district.

But the JEP has obtained court papers from the Clark County District Court in Nevada which show that the case was formally filed on 30 April — more than a month before the States debate.

goody

Heads MUST roll over this !

admin

A States deputy has resigned from the Waterfront Enterprise Board because he believes the chairman has a conflict of interests.

Senator Jimmy Perchard says it's important the workings of WEB are transparent and open.

He says it's wrong that the Chairman, Gerald Voisin, is also a non executive chairman of Allied Irish Bank. The same bank who on a number of occasions have acted for Harcourt Developments. These include projects that WEB are responsible for such as the West of Albert Development.

Gerald Voisin has confirmed he does holds both posts, but denies a conflict of interest.

He says his links are with AIB Channel Islands and not AIB Plc based in the Republic of Ireland. It's the Republic of Ireland branch that have had dealings with Harcourt, and not the Channel Island based branch.

Gerald Voisin says he's never had any involvement whatsoever with any transactions between Harcourt and AIB Plce or any of its branches or subsidiaries.

admin

Harcourt statement
Pat Power, Director of Harcourt Developments Limited says...

“I would like to clarify a number of issues which have recently been raised in the States, and subsequently, in the media.

Firstly, the Nevada civil action is against a Harcourt subsidiary, and does not involve anything like the figure which has been quoted in the media as variously $800m and $800bn. $800m was the value of the proposed development, not the legal action, which will involve a massively smaller amount, if anything at all. Crucially, this action is being defended by our US lawyers in the strongest possible terms, and we believe it is entirely without merit.

We are currently working on more than a 100 projects in 11 different countries, and unfortunately this type of case does occur in the development industry. For the sake of absolute clarity it will have no effect on our work in Jersey, or our ability to finance that work whatsoever.

We are providing full financial guarantees to ensure that the Island is protected, and we have cooperated fully with all due diligence checks made to date, and will continue to do so.

In terms of the precise timings in the issue of the Nevada litigation, we can confirm the following:

20th May 2008 – I wrote to the Chief Minister (copied to WEB) to inform them that although a dispute with a former partner existed, no action in Nevada had actually been served on us. To be absolutely clear, the action may well have been filed in a Nevada Court before that date, but until it is actually served on us, we would not have been aware of it.

22nd May – I was informed by our Nevada attorney that a motion had now actually been served, and was being dealt with accordingly by our lawyers. We didn’t see the need to update the information we had given previously to WEB and the Chief Minister for the following reasons:

It will have no impact whatsoever on the Jersey proposals, and so at that time, we just didn’t see it as at all relevant.

We are robustly defending the action which we argue is entirely without merit.

5th June: I was asked by WEB for the latest position, and I heard that the Chief Minister had mistakenly informed the States that the action hadn’t been filed. As soon as possible, I checked the current status of the case with our US attorney. I then relayed that information to the Chief Minister, but by then, the debate had concluded.

We acted in good faith at all times, and have already apologised personally to the Chief Minister if he has been caused any embarrassment. We also regret any embarrassment caused to WEB or to the States as a whole. There was never any intention to mislead; the Nevada action was simply not viewed as having any impact at all on our work in Jersey, and our position on that point remains entirely unchanged.

We believe our work in Jersey to date clearly illustrates our very strong commitment to the Island. We have already delivered several successful projects, such as Liberation Station which is well used by Islanders, the Apart Hotel operated by Bridge Street, and Liberation House let by Moore Management, CPA and Ernst & Young. Liberty Wharf is proceeding successfully with Deerglen.

We are delighted to be involved in the construction of a world class financial services centre for Jersey, and will continue to work hard with both WEB and Planning to ensure that we deliver a waterfront of which Islanders can truly be proud.'

admin

A States member and leading critic of the scheme is calling for the resignation of WEB's chairman.

And another leading States member has quit the board because he also believes the chairman has a conflict of interests.

This morning and a frustrated Deputy Sean Power e-mails Senator Philip Ozouf and copies it in to all members and the press. He's clearly not happy. The email read: "For the energetic and talented guy you are, sometimes you can be an overbearing and pompous twit."

"I apologise if my warnings about Waterfront financing have embarrassed you. If the Council of Ministers don't do something about WEB I will have no option but to accuse you of gross negligence on the part of the public purse".

Deputy Power also tells members he thinks the chairman of WEB needs to resign because of a conflict of interest.

Senator James Perchard, one of three States members on WEB, also thinks there's a conflict of interest. And in another early morning e-mail he told members he's resigned. The email read:

"I felt that issue to do with Harcourts business in Neveda could have been handled internally. Last night when reviewing my e-mails I did open an e-mail from the chairman of the Waterfront Enterprise Board who informed me that he was also the non executive chairman of AIB Channel Islands limited and I know that AIB are invovled in financing Harcourt Development limited and I just feel this is just a little bit too close and I am concerned by the conflict and I did not enter politics to swim in murky waters and I just feel this isn't for me and I'm best out of it and the States need to deal with this as they see fit."

But WEB chairman Gerald Voisin doesn't believe there is a conflict. He said: "I would like to say though, and take this opportunity to go on record as saying that I have no conflict of interest my role with AIB Channel Islands Limited, does not impact upon my work at WEB and I have no dealings in that role, I have no dealings with Harcourt limited. In fact the only time I ever speak to or see Harcourt is in relation to my work at WEB."

While investigations continue into the suitablitiy of Harcourts to develop the site the scheme's been put on hold.