The Sunset Building in Simpson Bay.
SIMPSON BAY--The former owners of the Sunset Building in Simpson Bay, which was auctioned off and sold to the Princess Group of Companies on October 30 have filed an injunction in which they call on the Court of First Instance to declare the auction of their property null and void. The judge heard the injunction against Scotiabank, The Republic Bank and Port de Plaisance Boutiques N.V. on Friday.
The property was auctioned off because former owners Paradise Real Estate (PRE) N.V., United St. Maarten Party (US Party) Member of Parliament (MP) Frans George Richardson and Anthony Alexander Carty had failed to pay $1,317,647 in loan debts to Scotiabank.
The property with a market value of US $3.2 million was sold for the auction value of $2,240,000 to the Princess Group, represented by Hakan Unal, the only bidder at the auction in Holland House Beach Hotel conducted by notary Faride Tjon Ajong.
In the meantime, PDPB, which is part of the Princess Group, has paid 10 per cent of the purchase price, attorney for PRE, Richardson and Carty Jairo Bloem confirmed.
In an earlier court procedure, PRE, Richardson and Carty had attempted in vain to prevent Scotiabank from organising the auction.
PRE, Richardson and Carty claim that Scotiabank was at default in executing the public auction, which they claim should be declared null and void because the bank should have accepted a last-minute proposition to cancel the auction.
According to claimants, a third party, headed by Atlantis Group owner Francesco Corallo, would have been willing to buy the Sunset Building against market value.
Also, they were prepared to pay the notary fee of almost $43,000 and Richardson and Carty were willing to pay off their personal loans with Scotiabank, which were preconditions set by the bank to call off the auction.
Richardson believed he was being treated unfairly. “We lived up to the agreement, we paid the notary fee and paid off personal loans. It is unfair. We were on time and delivered, but still the auction was executed,” he told the judge.
The litigants claim the bank was obligated to call off the auction, but Scotiabank’s legal representative Roeland Zwanikken of BZSE Attorneys at Law had said the proposal was submitted too late and called the auction on October 30, at 10:15am.
Allowing the continuation of the auction, Scotiabank had not acted in compliance with its “duty of care” with regard to its three clients, which rendered the auction null and void. The litigants are of the opinion that the bank did not handle the auction properly and should have continued negotiations.
Only minutes before the auction PRE came with a verbal request to give parties two weeks’ time to finalise the private sale (“onderhandse verkoop”) of the Sunset Building. Sureties and powers of attorney already had been signed, PRE claimed.
‘Too little, too late’
According to the bank it all had been “too little, too late,” and it had declined to call the auction off. BZSE lawyer Jeroen Vlasblom contended that the bank had submitted a proposal via email to claimants. He said it was “only an invitation to talk about a possible solution to the dispute. It was not an offer, but an invitation to continue negotiations or an invitation to make a proposal, but no invitation for an immediate agreement,” he stated.
Zwanikken said the bank had had the right to auction. “In September 2017 they [PRE et al – Ed.] were informed that the bank wanted to terminate their credit relationship. Demand letters were sent and eventually they were granted a six-month extension. An injunction was launched to establish whether they were defaulting or not, and the answer was ‘yes,’” he stated.
In answering the question whether the bank was at default because a “perfect” agreement was reached between the bank and litigants on auction day, the lawyer stated that this would only have been the case if claimants had given timely notification of their intention to start working on a written agreement.
“Instead, claimants did not respond to the email and only the next day, at 10:15am, did they say that the auction should be suspended because they wanted to fulfil the bank’s requirements. This was all too late and not within a reasonable period of time,” Zwanikken said.
All claims against PDPB should be rejected, as these were unfounded, the company’s lawyer stated.
The judge will give his decisions on all claims on Friday, December 13.
