The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Prime Minister Perry Christie’s recent meetings with the parties to the $3.5 billion Baha Mar dispute were yesterday branded “a public relations exercise” by the Democratic National Alliance’s (DNA) leader, who agreed it amounted to “interference” with the project’s provisional liquidators.

Branville McCartney told Tribune Business it was noticeable that the Prime Minister and Sarkis Izmirlian gave markedly different accounts of their Monday meeting.

He added that the dispute over the Baha Mar project had amounted to a ‘three or four versus’ one scenario, with the Chinese contractor and financier, the Beijing government and the Christie administration siding against Mr Izmirlian as the developer.

And, seizing on the Prime Minister’s comments, just one week after the Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing by Baha Mar, that the situation in the Bahamas would soon be “dead good”, Mr McCartney retorted: “Things are certainly dead and not good.”

Turning to Monday’s meeting, Mr McCartney told Tribune Business: “It seems as if both parties came out saying two different things. One says the Government was very upbeat, but the other one is saying that only applies to the Government.

“We have two different conclusions as to that meeting yesterday. It would seem to have been a PR exercise. The Government comes out and says it was all good, but we’ve heard that before from this Government.”

Mr Christie’s meetings and conference calls with Mr Izmirlian, the China Export-Import Bank and China Construction America (CCA) have not seemingly yielded any major breakthrough in the Baha Mar impasse, with just 35 days left to reach a commercial resolution before the Government’s petition to wind-up the developer’s companies is heard before the Supreme Court.

To-date, neither Chinese entity has gone beyond previous public statements, in which they have promised to assist in completing Baha Mar in the shortest possible time.

And Mr Izmirlian appears to have merely restated his long-held position during the hour-long meeting with Mr Christie at the Prime Minister’s Office.

All of which has led many observers, including Mr McCartney, to suggest that the Prime Minister and Government have so far been engaged in a ‘PR window dressing’ exercise, while also seemingly taking over the role of the provisional liquidators.

Several sources have suggested that, with a PLP convention coming up, Mr Christie needs to at least give the impression he is achieving something with Baha Mar. He will also want to ensure that the 2,400 persons whose jobs ‘hang in the balance’ continue receiving salaries until after the convention.

“This is the same Government that, a week after the filing of bankruptcy in Delaware, said things were going to be dead good in this country,” Mr McCartney said yesterday.

“Things are certainly dead and not good, no doubt about that. This is the same Prime Minister who said they were going to be mediating between the parties but, at the same time, was doing business with one of them, the contractor, in relation to The Pointe. Obviously, there was a huge conflict there.

“This was three or four guys - the bank, the contractor, the Beijing government and the Prime Minister - all working against the developer.”

The DNA leader said the appointment of Bahamian accountant Ed Rahming, a partner at KRyS Global (Bahamas), and his UK colleagues as joint provisional liquidators had “set the developer back”.

And he agreed that Mr Christie and the Government’s meetings with the Baha Mar parties had supplanted the provisional liquidators, who have been charged by the Supreme Court with the power “to promote a scheme of arrangement and/or compromise with all stakeholders”.

In other words, to bring all parties together - including the Chinese, Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian, the Government and creditors - and explore whether a commercial solution for Baha Mar’s construction completion and opening can be reached.

“This is a matter in court,” Mr McCartney told Tribune Business, “and unless they were about to settle the matter, there seems to be some type of interference.

“There’s nothing wrong with meetings to settle. It’s always better to settle in the board room than fight in the court room. But that meeting was not about settlement; that meeting was about PR.”