NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Bank of The Bahamas (BOB), through its attorney Gail Lockhart-Charles, has sought to clarify that a judgment awarding $9.8 million in damages to former Tall Pines MP Leslie Miller for the breach of leases at his Summerwinds Plaza property contained no statements against the BISX-listed lender.
“Bank of The Bahamas wishes the public and the press to note that the ruling of Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson on the application made by Mr Leslie Miller and his companies for summary judgment against the attorney general and the treasurer of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas has been issued,” said Lockhart-Charles.
She added: “The public and the press are asked to note that, contrary to the previous reports in the media, the ruling contains no statements against the bank. The bank calls upon the media houses who previously published statements that Justice Grant-Thompson had found that the bank acted in ‘bad faith’ or ‘hand-in-hand’ with the government to retract those statements.
“The bank wishes the public and the press to note that the ruling of Justice Grant-Thompson, which has been signed and released, contains no such findings or statements against the bank.
“It is noted that the false and misleading statements that were previously published by the press may have emanated from the improper circulation of a draft copy of the ruling. The bank wishes the press and the media to note that the finalized ruling contains no such statements and makes no findings against the bank.”
Lockhart-Charles noted that the judgment relates to damages claimed by Miller and his companies for alleged breach of the leases between Miller’s companies and the government.
“The bank notes that the attorney general and the treasurer are appealing the findings made against those parties with regard to the alleged breach of the leases,” she stated.
She added: “With regard to Mr Miller’s claims against the bank, the trial of these claims has not yet taken place.
“The bank asserts in its defense that Mr Miller and his companies were in serious default of their loan obligations and that the amount of the debt owed by Mr Miller and his companies to the bank exceeded $30.5 million dollars.
“The bank also asserts in its defense that, contrary to Mr Miller’s allegations, there was nothing improper in the circumstances about its refusal to extend further credit to Mr Miller and his companies.”
According to Lockhart-Charles, BOB further asserts in its defense that Miller’s allegation that the bank acted maliciously and in breach of contract by refusing to extend further sums to Miller and his companies is completely without merit.
“The bank stands by its decision and its defense. The bank reiterates that no findings have been made against it and that it will fully respond to Mr Miller’s claims at trial.”
