The Owners of the Estate recently started summary proceedings before the Court of First Instance at Sint Maarten against the attachment placed on the estate by Rain Forest. The latter claimed that the owners of the estate had committed themselves to deliver ownership of 75 percent of the estate and that it is entitled to take ownership. The latter also claimed that it is entitled to financial compensation of about US$ 15.5 million if the deal is to fall through. The Court had limited the attachment for compensation of damages to US$ 5 million. On September 7, 2012 a court hearing took place during which the owners of the estate, represented by attorneys Brenda Brooks and Mark Meijjer, argued that the cooperation agreement between owners and Rain Forest specifically allows them to sell the estate to government. Owners also argued that Rain Forest unilaterally changed the financial components of the transaction, with which owners do not and will not agree, and that Rain Forest because of that cannot meet its obligations under the agreement.
The Court of First Instance, in its ruling of September 21, 2012, took into consideration that owners are under no obligation to accept the alternative financing of the project, of which the most prominent is that Rain Forest had agreed under the cooperation agreement to bring in equity in the amount of US$ 6.5 million, whereas from the financing agreement with Carnival it appears that only US$ 1,78 million will be brought in as equity. Due to this alternative financing, owners will receive far less for the property as has been agreed upon. According to the Court, owners are under no obligation to transfer ownership now that Rain Forest did not meet all stipulations of the cooperation agreement. Because of the above the alleged claim for performance (i.e. the transfer of ownership) is summarily proven to be unjustified.
Owners also argued that the claim for compensation of damages is unjustified, which argument the Court followed. Rain Forest had argued that it will suffer damages if the project falls through. Because Rain Forest did not present to the court its petition to place the attachments nor the petition on the merits of the case, the court considered Rain Forest's claim for compensation of damages insufficiently substantiated. The claim for compensation of damages is therefore summarily proven to be unjustified also.
Under those circumstances, according to the court, owner's interest in lifting the attachment outweighs Rain Forest's interest in performance or compensation of its so far summarily proven unjustified claims. The court considered it that unlikely that Rain Forest is entitled to performance or compensation of damages that owners, who want to transfer ownership to government, cannot be expected to wait for the outcome of the proceeding on the merits of the case before they can do so.
With this ruling of the Court of First Instance there is no obstacle for government to take ownership of the estate. Owners presented the ruling to government and urged government to proceed.
Click here to view the verdict for Henri Brookson vs. Rain Forest Adventures.
