The feuding sides in the controversial Levera development project in the north of the island have been engaged for over three years in a plethora of correspondence between them on a Purchase Agreement for the 256 acre property.
THE NEW TODAY has obtained a number of letters that were exchanged between Lance Aux Epines businessman, Lyden Ramdhanny acting for the Levera Resort Development Ltd (LRDL) and American investor Randall Oveson of the Grenada Citizenship Development limited (GCDL) as far back as 2016.
The documents show that GCDL has often been in default in scheduled payments and constantly requested extension of time to complete the Sale & Purchase Agreement for the property.
GCDL has now filed papers in court against Levera Resort after it was forced to cease work at Levera after the property was sold unknown to it by the Ramdhanny group to a Chinese billionaire and his company, Singapore Heng Sheng (Grenada) Development Pte, Ltd for US$35 million.
Randall Oveson and his brother Robert Oveson are seeking $US19.5 million in compensation from Levera Resort in damages especially for millions collected from persons who contributed to the Levera development through Grenada’s controversial passport-selling scheme known as Citizenship By Investment (CBI).
In a letter dated May 24, 2018, Ramdhanny reminded Randall Oveson of the number of “formal default notices” sent to him over their failure to honour their financial obligations to Levera Resorts.
The letter also sought to get specific details from Oveson on the kinds of arrangements his company was trying to make with a host of overseas entities to come up with money to finalise the Purchase Agreement.
As a public service, THE NEW TODAY reproduces in full one of the many letters sent by Ramdhanny to Oveson:
24th May 2018
Mr. Randy Oveson
Grenada Citizenship Development Limited
C/O Afi Ventour & Co.
Spiceland Mall. Grand Anse,
Dear Mr. Oveson
As you know from the formal default notices we have sent to you, GCD have now been in default of its contractual obligations set out in the Purchase Agreement dated 18th March 2016 for a period in excess of one year and two months.
Whilst GCD remain in default LRDL have refrained from taking remedial action to recover its debts given the efforts GCD have made to make nominal monthly payments pending its ability to settle its liabilities under the Purchase Agreement. However this action by LRDL is made purely in good faith to give GCD further time to settle its contractual obligations and does not of itself excuse GCD from the same and should not be construed as a willingness on the part of LRDL to continue to do so.
The willingness of LRDL to continue to refrain from recovery action as set out in the contractual documents is based not only on the continuing prompt payment of $100,000 at the end of each calendar month but also the provision of tangible and progressive information relative to the possible sources of funds from which GCD claim it might fund its obligations under the Purchase Agreement.
In the latter respect recent information has been vague and inconsistent and we now require more definitive information as follows:
(1) . Confirmation that GCD will make a minimum payment of $100,000 to Paul Taylor by the end of this calendar month and the source of such payment.
(2). Confirmation of other funds which you stated in your email dated 24th April to me are due this calendar month and the provenance of such funds.
(3). Detailed breakdown of all other current unfunded obligations due under the CBI programme.
(4). Definitive answers to the following questions regarding funds due under the Investment Agreement dated with counterparty Wood Mccagno Family Trust.
(i). The contract is dated 15th March 2018 and in accordance with Article 1 thereof should have been funded on execution of the contract date but at today’s date remains unfunded. Please explain the reasons given by the counterparty for this delay, what due-diligence you have undertaken to validate the explanation given, the counterparty’s capacity to fund on the revised proposed date given of 25th May 2018, the prospects for this payment, the projected timeline for this payment and provide tangible evidence of your client’s ability to make the payment.
(ii). Please explain why Article 4 of the Investment Agreement refers to a commencement date of the project in the first quarter of 2017 which is one year prior to the date the Investment Agreement was signed.
(5). In relation to the long outstanding loan finance from Omega please also provide definitive answers to the following questions:
(i). Where exactly is Omega in their filing process with the SEC and when is the proposed Effective Date and the proposed funding timeline? Omega has submitted numerous funding dates in the past, none of which have fructified and so we would welcome details of outstanding queries by the SEC and the timetable for closing.
(ii). An explanation of the commercial rationale behind the prospectus given the following. Why would a prospective Investor buy shares in the target company at the launch of the offering? There are 40 million shares outstanding at the moment (35 million owned by Omega), and the price paid for all of those 40 million shares issued by the company is USD 3.4 million. Starting 90 days after the SEC approves the registration, Omega and the other current shareholders can start to sell their shares at whatever price they want, and none of the proceeds goes to the company – it just enriches them.
As you would expect, there is a very clear “health warning” in the Registration Statement on page 16. You will experience immediate and substantial dilution as a result of this Direct Offering and may experience additional dilution in the future. If you purchase Shares in the Direct Offering, you will incur immediate and substantial dilution of $8.18 per Share, representing the difference between the assumed initial public offering price of $15.00 per Share and our pro forma net tangible book value per Share as of December 31, 2017 after giving effect to consummation of the October private Offering and the Direct Offering, assuming all the Shares offered hereby in the Direct Offering are sold.
(6). In relation to the alternative loan proposal from Kennedy can you please advise specifically where they have reached with this funding and provide written evidence to support the same.
We look forward to hearing from you in relation to the above so we can properly consider our position and the realistic prospect for settlement by GCD of the Purchase Agreement.
Levera Resort Development Ltd