In a significant legal development, China Construction America (CCA), through a New York-based communications firm, announced its intention to challenge a ruling from the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The court’s decision, presided over by Justice Andrew Borrok, found CCA responsible for multiple breaches and acts of fraud linked to the Baha Mar project at Cable Beach, Bahamas, resulting in a substantial $1.6 billion judgment in favor of BML Properties Ltd. (BMLP).
The controversial ruling:
Justice Borrok’s ruling concluded that CCA’s actions directly led to the financial demise of Sarkis Izmirlian’s company, wiping out its entire $845 million investment in the project. In contrast, CCA criticizes the decision as “deeply flawed,” arguing that it disregards key evidence of financial mismanagement by BML Properties themselves, which they claim overborrowed, overspent, and then pushed the project into a secretive bankruptcy to sidestep obligations to stakeholders, including the minority investor CSCEC Bahamas and the Bahamian government.
According to The Nassau Guardian, the court stated, “Mr. Izmirlian credibly testified that if he had known the project would not open on March 27, 2015, BML would have conserved its cash and would not have entered into the liquidity crisis that ultimately led to its liquidation and the loss of BML’s investment.”
Justice Borrok emphasized the fraudulent actions by CCA, declaring, “Aside from never telling BML of the urgent need for more workers, as he was obligated to do as the CSCECB board member, these assurances by Mr. [Tiger] Wu and his subordinates were false and designed to induce reliance by BMLP and in Daniel Liu’s words ultimately ‘turn passive into active’ and cause a liquidity crisis pushing BMLP out of its $845 million investment.”
CCA’s statement detailed their planned appeal, emphasizing the court’s oversight in acknowledging the external financial pressures and internal missteps by BML Properties that precipitated the project’s failure. They noted that had BML not committed to a premature opening date, they could have avoided a liquidity crisis that ultimately forced the project into liquidation.
The ruling by Justice Borrok highlighted specific fraudulent behaviors by CCA, including failing to communicate the need for additional labor and falsely assuring project timelines to induce financial commitments from BMLP. Particularly damning was the revelation that funds intended for subcontractor payments were instead allegedly used by CCA to purchase a competing hotel development.
Broader context of the Baha Mar development:
The Baha Mar dispute traces back to funding decisions made during the 2008 global financial crisis when Izmirlian turned to China’s Exim Bank, resulting in a $2.45 billion investment earmarked for the resort’s construction. The project’s failure to meet its initial December 2014 opening date and subsequent bankruptcy filing in June 2015 highlighted deeper issues with the project’s management and execution, largely attributed to CCA’s handling of construction duties.
The Bahamian government, viewing Baha Mar as a pivotal economic project, eventually intervened, leading to the property’s transfer to a liquidator and later, resumption of construction under a new agreement with CCA. The resort finally opened in April 2017 under new ownership by Chow Tai Fook Enterprises, a move that linked the project with some of Asia’s significant business networks and continued the resort’s contentious but critical role in the region’s economic landscape.
As CCA moves forward with its appeal, the case remains a focal point in discussions about international investment, construction ethics, and the legal responsibilities of global corporations in development projects. The outcome of the appeal could have far-reaching implications for international construction contracts and investor relations, particularly in high-stakes developments like Baha Mar.
