THE Las Vegas lawsuit against Harcourt Developments claims that the company has been involved in conspiracy and fraud over the luxury $800 million Sullivan Square project.
Glen, Smith and Glen Developments is suing its Irish partner Harcourt for alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
The lawsuit was filed with Clark County District Court in Nevada on 30 April this year, and details have been obtained by the JEP.
It claims that in October 2007 Harcourt defaulted on its funding obligation by ‘failing to timely provide sufficient funding for development and construction’ of the Sullivan Square project.
It states that this has allegedly resulted in significant damage to GSG’s reputation in the Las Vegas business community and has led to ‘lawsuits and mechanic’s liens from contractors, vendors and consultants on the project’.
The case, which is being vigorously defended by Harcourt, is due to go to trial.
GSG’s attorney, John Manly, said that his clients were accusing Harcourt of hijacking the development and financially defrauding and exploiting the Las Vegas-based developers.
He said that his clients were devastated by their experiences with Harcourt.
‘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. They are well respected developers with 70 years’ combined experience developing real estate in Nevada and across the United States.’
Director of Harcourt Patrick Power said that the lawsuit would have no effect on their work in Jersey, or their ability to finance the project.
‘The Nevada civil action is against a Harcourt subsidiary, and does not involve anything like the figure which has been quoted in the media as variously $800m and $800bn. $800m was the value of the proposed development, not the legal action, which will involve a massively smaller amount, if anything at all. Crucially, this action is being defended by our US lawyers in the strongest possible terms, and we believe it is entirely without merit.’
