A MAJOR investigation into events surrounding the Waterfront fiasco is under way.

Lawyers acting on behalf of the States are examining overseas lawsuits against the preferred developers, Harcourt, in both Dublin and Nevada.
It has been promised that facts and figures as well as background reports surrounding the entire £330m project will be made public in less than two weeks.
But who has said what? Over the last week there have been a number of press conferences and statements by various people and organisations and a consistent chronology of events doesn’t always emerge.
Here’s what has been said following the controversial States debate in which States Members were misled about the existence of a lawsuit against Harcourt in Nevada.

THE STORY SO FAR

5 June
The Waterfront fiasco began when, hours after the States approved the financial deal for the £330m Waterfront development, Members were handed confidential documents that raised concerns about the funding of the project. The documents, which recommended that the Waterfront Enterprise Board should ask for more recent financial information about Harcourt, were immediately leaked to the JEP.
Chief Minister Frank Walker also had to apologise for misleading the House after earlier denying the existence of a lawsuit against the company over the $800m Sullivan Square development in Nevada.
On the same evening the JEP contacted the Las Vegas developers suing Harcourt. Their attorney, John Manly, sent this statement: ‘There is a lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas alleging serious misconduct involving millions of dollars by Harcourt and a number of its directors. These allegations include conspiracy and fraud. My clients, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, are good and decent people.’

7 JUNE
Following the controversial debate, various States Members gathered over the weekend to see if they could get the States to bring the debate back to the House.

10 JUNE
The JEP revealed that three States Ministers, including Chief Minister Frank Walker, were e-mailed information, by Deputy Sean Power, about the Las Vegas lawsuit against developers Harcourt almost three weeks before the Waterfront debate and that the court papers from the Clark County District Court in Nevada showed that the case was filed on 30 April. But Harcourt say the action wasn’t served on them until 22 May.
The lawsuit against Harcourt alleges breach of contract over the $800 million Sullivan Square project.
Logging onto Google, as Deputy Gerard Baudains did the night before the debate, an online article in the Las Vegas Sun, published at 3.20 pm on 30 April, has the headline ‘Vegas Company sues Irish partner over condo development’.
Another online article in the Irish Times – published on 2 May– is headlined: ‘Las Vegas developer sues Irish company over project’.
The JEP contacted WEB chairman Gerald Voisin after learning that he was also on a subsidiary board of Allied Irish Bank (AIB) – the bank behind developers Harcourt.

11 JUNE
Less than a week after the debate, the States were in disarray.
WEB director Senator Jim Perchard resigned after learning that WEB chairman Gerald Voisin was linked with Harcourt’s financial backers. ‘I don’t want to swim in murky waters,’ he said. Mr Voisin denied a conflict of interest.
Senator Stuart Syvret brought a vote of no confidence against the Council of Ministers and Scrutiny refused to back the Jersey Enterprise Board plan and the States withdrew the proposal.

12 JUNE
Senator Frank Walker faced a vote of censure.
Deputy Geoff Southern also called for the States to remove the WEB chairman and directors.

13 JUNE
The JEP revealed that Harcourt Developments were being sued in Dublin over claims that another developer allegedly owned half the rights to develop the Esplanade. Harcourt strongly denied the allegations and said that the Liberty Wharf and Esplanade Quarter projects were 100 per cent financed by them.

17 JUNE
Harcourt chairman Pat Doherty flew in to Jersey to meet politicians and the media and accused some Members of trying to ‘derail’ the multi-million project.
The Irish-based company complained to the Bailiff about the conduct of Deputy Sean Power, who they say tried to become a consultant of Harcourt before he became a politician – a claim which Deputy Power denied.

SENATOR FRANK WALKER’S VERSION OF EVENTS

19 MAY
Following Deputy Sean Power’s e-mail about the Las Vegas lawsuit, Senator Walker said that he sent an e-mail to the managing director of WEB, Stephen Izzat, saying: ‘I need to know what the situation is.’

20 MAY
He said he received an e-mail from Harcourt director Pat Power, who admitted that ‘there was a dispute’ but there was ‘no court case’.

4 JUNE (eve of the Waterfront debate)
Speaking from his holiday in Bermuda after the debate, Senator Walker said: ‘At no point did I, or would I, mislead the States. I asked three times the night before the debate for a 100 per cent guarantee that there was no court action and I was assured that there was not.’ He said that he received this information from Pat Power at Harcourt.

5 JUNE
The States approved the financial part of the Waterfront plan, including the 150-year lease.
But hours after the decision, it was revealed that proposed developers Harcourt were being sued in Las Vegas and a PricewaterhouseCoopers report cast doubt on their ability to carry out the project.
Senator Walker explained what he did after the debate, saying: ‘In the lunch recess Deputy [Gerard] Baudains approached me and was very strong indeed on the belief that there was a court case.
‘Because of what he said I returned to my office and I personally got onto the internet and checked and found to my considerable disquiet that there was a court case. So I immediately got in touch with the MD of WEB [Stephen Izzat] to establish what the actual facts were and received a phone call from Pat Power of Harcourt, who confirmed there was a court action, and he subsequently provided the dates when Harcourt were made aware that there was a court action.
‘I had no alternative based on that information other than to go back to the States and say: ‘‘I have misled you and I apologise.’’
‘I understand from Harcourt that they were served the papers on 20 May. The suggestion is that they were made aware of the action some time after they told me there was no action. I have asked very direct questions both of Harcourt and WEB and have yet to receive all the answers. Everybody should avoid jumping to conclusions and should wait until we have hard facts.’

HARCOURT DIRECTOR PAT POWER’S VERSION OF EVENTS

20 MAY
Mr Power said that he wrote to Senator Walker, copying in WEB, to inform them that although a dispute with a former partner existed, no action in Nevada had actually been served.
He said: ‘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.’

22 MAY
Almost three weeks after the lawsuit was filed in Nevada, Harcourt said it was served the papers. But did not think it was necessary to let the States of Jersey know about the action.
Pat Power said: ‘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.
‘1. 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.
‘2. We are robustly defending the action, which we argue is entirely without merit.’

5 JUNE
Mr Power said: ‘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.’

WEB MANAGING DIRECTOR STEPHEN IZATT’S VERSION OF EVENTS

19 MAY
Mr Izatt said that he first heard formally about the lawsuit via Senator Walker, who had been sent some information from Deputy Power. He contacted Harcourt director Pat Power, who responded by e-mailing him and Senator Walker on 20 May saying the lawsuit had not been served.

13 JUNE
Mr Izatt told the JEP that they did all the necessary checks on developer Harcourt in the light of recent revelations about a Las Vegas lawsuit.
Mr Izatt said that it was Harcourt’s responsibility to inform WEB of any court action that they felt would have an impact on the project in Jersey. ‘The onus is on Harcourt to inform us,’ he said.

FORMER WEB DIRECTOR SENATOR JIM PERCHARD’S VERSION OF EVENTS

10 JUNE
He said that ‘on the morning of the debate we were told categorically that there was no lawsuit in Nevada.
‘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.’

11 JUNE
Senator Perchard resigned as a director of WEB after learning that WEB chairman Gerald Voisin was linked with Harcourt’s financial backers. ‘I don’t want to swim in murky waters and I do not want to be associated with dark corridors,’ he said.