Ritz Developer Award Stayed

Michael Ryan,
Ritz-Carlton Developer.

Wednesday, August 3, 2005

Having anticipated receiving some $28 million in damages from its erstwhile general contractor, Fluor Daniels, after winning a legal battle in New York, Humphreys Cayman Ltd, better known here as the Ritz-Carlton Grand Cayman developer, may yet be disappointed.

According to sources at Off-shore Alert, the Miami-based financial newsletter, the judge who presided over the case has granted a stay of the award in the wake of Fluor Daniels� motion to have the verdict overturned.

The Ritz-Carlton developer, Michael Ryan, had said at the time that, although he expected to get a favourable verdict, �we are nonetheless gratified that the jury recognized that we had acted correctly in terminating Fluor for its failure to perform.�

The developer had terminated the services of Fluor Daniels on 3 March 2004 citing that the general contractor was unable to complete its work in a cost-effective and timely manner.

Fluor Daniels however gave a different side to the story when they initiated legal action, allegedly in order to get payment from the Ritz developer for work they had undertaken.

Some speculation had been raised over the result and the award to the Ritz-Carlton developer after Jim Miller, Humpreys� damages expert, had evidently been found to be credible by the jury, based on the outcome of the trial, even though he was reportedly caught lying on the witness stand and admitted to an error in his damages calculation of some $5 million.

Fluor Daniels were equally as shocked by the verdict as Michael Ryan was pleased, and announced in the wake of the trial result that the firm would be appealing the decision.

The latest turn of events is, therefore, less than surprising to those following the case. Fluor Daniels � currently working here in the Cayman Islands on Dart Management�s Caymania project � said the verdict was baseless and could not be supported as it did not reflect what had actually happened.

�Fluor strongly believes that this verdict is not supported by the facts or by applicable law and will pursue all possible avenues of reconsideration or appeal,� a spokesperson for the firm said.

One legal expert close to the case said that, in such commercial matters, trial by jury is not always ideal as the cases can be extremely complex and difficult for jurors who know nothing about contract law or indeed development, to follow and then make expert decisions or judgements.

.Back...

Send us your comments!

Send us your comments on this article for publication in our Readers' Forum. All fields are required and in the interest of openness and transparency we will no longer accept anonymous submissions. We therefore request that all submissions include a name for publication, regardless of content. We will in special circumstances protect a writer�s identity only after we have established good cause for anonymity, otherwise we will not be able to publish the submission.

For your contribution to reach us, you must (a) provide a valid e-mail address and (b) click on the validation link that will be sent to the e-mail address you provide. If the address is not valid or you don't click on the validation link, it will be a waste of your time typing your submission because we will never see it!

Your Name:
Your Email: (Validation required)
Topic:
Comments: