WATERFRONT developers Harcourt are to blame for the States being misled over the Las Vegas lawsuit, according to a director of the Waterfront Enterprise Board.

Senator Jim Perchard says that the company insisted that the $800bn Nevada lawsuit had not been filed, even while last week’s debate was going on.

He says that Chief Minister Frank Walker was assured by Harcourt director Pat Power during the debate that there was no case in Las Vegas, and says that is why both he and Senator Walker accused Deputy Gerard Baudains – who raised the issue – of misleading the House.

But court papers obtained by the JEP have revealed that the case was filed in Clark County district court on 30 April – more than a month before the debate began.

Senator Perchard said: ‘On the morning of the debate we were told categorically that there was no lawsuit in Nevada.

‘Much like Senator Walker, I am disappointed that the States were misled. I want to apologise for misleading the States, but I did not do it knowingly.

‘The executives at WEB were asked as to why this information was not checked. Harcourt told our people there was a disgruntled ex-business partner in Nevada who was thinking of filing a suit, but that nothing had been filed.’

Senator Perchard told WEB staff to distribute two reports – one on Harcourt’s financial capacity and a risk analysis – to States Members on Thursday.

Those reports were leaked to the JEP and three finance industry professionals told the paper that they struck a cautious tone and suggested asking Harcourt for more information.

When asked why he described the reports as ‘glowing’ in the States – a view not shared by the three experts approached by the JEP – Senator Perchard would not answer directly, and said that the reports would be updated.

In any event, he said, no development agreements would be signed until third-party bank guarantees were in place to ‘insure’ the States’ position.

‘The financial capacity of Harcourt is not in doubt,’ said the Senator, who is an assistant health minister with responsibility for child protection.

‘Due diligence reports are always very conservative and there was never a suggestion that we should not touch them. There was never going to be an issue with Harcourt.

‘Unless there were third-party guarantees the States of Jersey would never have dealt with them, and neither would WEB.’