Dear Editor,
I refer to your article published on Tuesday, January 6, 2015, headlined ‘Questions continue over Marriott deal opening date.’
On December 1 last year, that is, over a month ago, your reporter, Ms Pushpa Balgobin, interviewed me by phone on the subject of the progress of the Guyana Marriott Hotel and subsequently submitted a number of questions in writing following the interview to which I responded in writing.
I was surprised, therefore, that nothing was published at the time of the interview, and find it disappointing that now, some five weeks later you publish an article, which is a significant departure from the written questions of your reporter and the responses I had provided. The article is factually inaccurate, misleading and misrepresents the responses I gave your reporter.
Your article’s opening paragraphs report that since Atlantic Hotel Inc (AHI) has announced the names of the investors in the hotel, “the major development… has been the mortgaging of around 7 acres of Kingston land in 4 plots to Republic Bank Ltd of Trinidad and Tobago for US$27M,” and that “while this deal is still to be signed, it had not been clear that it would be underpinned by a mortgage which would effectively give control of the hotel to the bank were it to encounter financial difficulties in making repayments.”
However, when your reporter interviewed me, she asked, “What is now the state of the original financing agreement?” My response was and remains: “Please clarify what you mean by ‘original’. Assuming you mean the RBL financing. The publication of the mortgages and debentures are the final steps required to conclude the financial arrangements we had contemplated from the inception of the project.”
Your article publishes this response much later and completely out of context. Your reporter then goes on to ask: “Republic Bank Ltd will become the mortgagor so in terms of the debt what is the new order of importance?” My response was: “There is no new order of importance; the Republic Bank Financing was from inception to be the senior debt.”
Your reporter then added the question: “Rep Bank would be the number one creditor?” My response was: “Yes, Rep Bank is the number one secured creditor.”
Pursuing the same line of questioning, your reporter, incredibly, states: “my understanding that should the hotel not be a successful venture the private investor responsible for the US$8M would have been first on the list to be serviced. As it stands now wouldn’t the mortgagor be treated first.” My response was: “This understanding is incorrect. The mortgagor was always contemplated and agreed to be treated first on repayment. It is a condition agreed to by all the investors.”
Your article, again, having had the benefit of the interview with me five weeks earlier, indulges in further mischievous reporting, by speculating that “observers say that this arrangement may be unpalatable to the Hong Kong Investors.” My interview with the reporter clearly states that the arrangement was “a condition agreed to by all the investors.”
In reference to the land mortgaged against the RBL loan, your article reports that “Brassington stated that the option has always been in place for the land to be leased or purchased and that RBL as the number one secure creditor to the project was invoking that option.” This is not what I said.
In fact, your reporter had asked the question: “What is the amount of the mortgage and when was the decision taken to change the framework from the leasing to mortgaging?” In my response I ask: “Please clarify what is meant from leasing to mortgaging.” I then made it absolutely clear that, “the ‘framework’ for the financing of the hotel has never changed. The financing is as was contemplated in the feasibility studies and communicated to the public by AHI on prior occasions.”
Your article also incorrectly reports that “the mortgage commenced December 10, 2010 and was executed on July 14, 2014.” In fact, a lease was executed by AHI and NICIL in January 2010 for the land on which the hotel and entertainment complex were to be constructed. The lease contained an option to purchase the land upon substantial completion of the hotel. AHI exercised its option to purchase the land and on July 23, 2013, title to the property was vested to AHI via Order No 15 of 2013 published in the Official Gazette.
Further, your reporter having failed to understand the information communicated to her, proceeded to question the veracity of my statement that the transfer of land involved in the mortgage for the RBL loan financing is a matter of public record since 2013, claiming that the newspaper “was unable to locate” any evidence of this.
Finally, your reporter asked whether the private investors are entering into a venture with significant risk. My response which you have not published is that from the inception of this project the opposition has launched an orchestrated campaign calculated to discourage and obstruct private investment in the development of the hotel.
Let me add that the opposition have used the media as a convenient platform to denigrate the viability of the project and to undermine, if not, subvert, both foreign and local private investor interests.
Opposition leaders, for instance, have gone to the length of threatening to dishonour internationally binding investor agreements entered into with regard to the ownership, financing and management of the hotel.
Every dollar invested in the hotel is well invested. NICIL’s and, by extension, AHI’s financial transactions are made with the full authority of the Cabinet, are subject to full public disclosure, are audited by the Audit Office of Guyana and subject to final parliamentary oversight.
The construction of the Guyana Marriott is near completion. Marriott’s management is in place. Staff are currently being engaged and trained. Marriott Hotels, Republic Bank and the private investors are all fully on board. The hotel will be opened shortly. Guyana will have, for the first time, a five-star internationally branded hotel of which we can all be proud.
Yours faithfully,
Winston Brassington
Chairman
Atlantic Hotel Inc
Editor’s note
The news item was not based exclusively on the questions that were posed by the reporter to Mr Brassington. It utilized information from other sources.
While Mr Brassington views the statement that the prospective Hong Kong investors may have an issue with the mortgagor being the number one secured creditor, Stabroek News considers it to be informed speculation which is perfectly acceptable for a project that has generated numerous unanswered questions over a lengthy period.
Stabroek News regrets any error as it relates to the presentation of Mr Brassington’s information on the financing framework for the project and the date of the commencement of the lease arrangement for the land on which the hotel and entertainment complex are to be constructed.
In referring to a question that had been asked about the risk that the investors in the hotel face, Mr Brassington proceeds to suggest that the opposition have used the media – presumably including Stabroek News – to denigrate the project. What Mr Brassington is really seeking to do is to denigrate the media. Stabroek News has been reporting on this project for many years in discharging its obligations to its readers.
