The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Bahamian law firm has persuaded the Supreme Court to add two foreign investors as co-defendants in its ongoing $2m dispute with one of the principals behind the proposed Long Island cruise port.

Justice Cheryl Bazard, in a February 13, 2026, verdict agreed with arguments by King & Company that Steven Harrington, a member of the ownership group for Exuma’s Peace & Plenty resort, as well as Eric Kim, who was involved in a recent move to take over management at the February Point development on the same island, be added as defendants alongside the law firm to the claim launched by Sherif Assal.

The latter, who is one of the principals leading the Calypso Cove cruise port project on Long Island, is demanding that King & Co refund $2m that he sent for a separate Exuma-based investment deal which never materialised. This was for a “proposed development” on Elizabeth Island that was being spearheaded by Messrs Harrington and Kim, who were two of the Bahamian law firm’s clients.

Mr Assal only initiated legal action against King & Co, and the law firm and its attorney, Raynard Rigby KC, successfully invoked the Supreme Court’s civil procedure rules to argue that Mr Harrington and Mr Kim should be joined in the action as named defendants because they played the key role in the transaction and know “the central facts concerning the use of the funds”. King & Co’s position is that it only acted as an escrow agent and facilitator taking instructions from its two foregn investor clients.

“The substantive action arises from a dispute concerning the claimant/respondent's [Mr Assal] transfer of $2m to the defendant/applicant [King & Co] in June 2021,” Justice Bazard recalled.

“The claimant/respondent alleges that the transfer was made in anticipation of acquiring a beneficial interest in Exumar LIC, a Florida entity associated with the ownership of land on Elizabeth Island, Exuma, held through Exuma Elizabeth Ltd.

“The defendant/applicant denies liability and maintains it acted solely on the instructions of its client, Steven Harrington, and that Exumar LLC is legally owned by Steven Harrington and Eric Kim. It further denies involvement in an investment arrangement between the claimant/respondent and Messrs Harrington and Kim, maintaining that it understood the funds were required to facilitate an urgent, time-sensitive property closing.”

Mr Rigby, on King & Co’s behalf, argued that joining the two foreign investors as defendants was “necessary for the proper and just determination of the issues in dispute”. The Bahamian law firm’s position was that Mr Assal’s claim for the return of the $2m “cannot be fairly adjudicated in the absence of those who allegedly arranged the transaction, benefited from the property acquisition and can speak to the central facts concerning the use of the funds”.

King & Co, in evidence placed before the Supreme Court, asserted that it received $385,074 in two separate amounts - $50,037 and $335,037 - on the same day, June 4, 2019, from Mr Harrington. A further $1 was paid to the law firm on May 26, 2021, by the Exuma Fund LLC as a further sum earmarked for the Elizabeth Island purchase price.

“On or about 8 June, 2021, [King & Co] was informed by Eric Kim that it will receive the sum of $2m in two separate amounts, $1.5m and $500,000, from the claimant [Mr Assal] to complete aforesaid land purchase for a time of the essence closing that same day,” King & Co added.

“The wire instruction received by the defendant from the claimant's bank had the following designation/notation: ‘Elizabeth Island closing’. That led the defendant to reasonably believe that the said sum was for the closing as indicated by Steven Harrington.

“The defendant paid the balance of the purchase price, which included the said sum of $2m, to Higgs & Johnson, the seller's attorneys, and the sale of the property by Exuma Elizabeth was completed on 8 June, 2021."

As a result, King & Co argued that Mr Harrington, Mr Kim, Exumar LLC and Exuma Elizabeth Ltd “are necessary and proper parties, as the claimant/respondent's case concerns an alleged investment arrangement with Harrington and Kim relating to Exumar LLC and the Elizabeth Island acquisition, rather than a contractual arrangement with the” law firm itself.

Mr Assal and his attorneys, Delaney Partners, while objecting to King & Co’s application said it did not oppose Messrs Harrington and Kim being joined as “third parties for the limited purpose of enabling the applicant to pursue contribution and/or indemnity against them”.

Justice Bazard, in her verdict, noted that the dispute stems “from the breakdown of an alleged investment transaction… involving the transfer of funds, the acquisition of property and the alleged entitlement to a beneficial interest” in the Elizabeth Island investment for Mr Assal. As a result, she found it was “desirable for all” those connected to the deal - especially Mr Harrington and Mr Kim - to be named as parties in the court case.

“Messrs Harrington and Kim are essential parties to the transaction and can assist the court in determining the critical issues, including the authorisation of the transfer, the capacity in which the defendant/applicant acted, and the ultimate beneficiary of the funds. Their inclusion will enable the court to resolve all issues arising from a single, common transaction and avoid the risk of fragmented or duplicate proceedings,” Justice Bazard added, finding this would not be satisfied by including the duo as “third parties”.

“Such limited joinder would require the court to decide key factual and proprietary issues relating to the substantive claim without these parties being directly involved as defendants, risking the need for separate proceedings and re-litigation of the same issues, including additional indemnity or contribution claims by the claimant/respondent,” she found.

“This would lead to fragmentation, and would not make effective use of judicial time. I do not agree that this approach is adequate; it would leave unresolved related issues of indemnity, contribution and authorisation, possibly resulting in further litigation and inconsistent outcomes. To ensure justice and judicial efficiency, these issues should be fully addressed in a single proceeding.”

While substantial work on the Calypso Cove project has yet to start, this newspaper has been told it continues to draw interest from the cruise lines. Mr Assal is a provider of security services to the global cruise industry for 22 years.

He is alleging that he was offered a 30 percent interest in the Elizabeth Island project, which was to feature a mixed-use resort development over 33.1 acres at its western end, by Mr Harrington and Mr Kim in return for a $3m investment in a property valued at $10m.

Two-thirds of that sum was purportedly paid through King & Co, but Mr Assal is claiming that the transaction involving his investment was never properly consummated and completed, and that he never agreed his $3m “would be used to purchase” the 33.1-acre site on August 4, 2021.

He is alleging that it is “unconscionable” for the Bahamian law firm to have either retained his monies or allowed its clients to finance their Exumas real estate purchase “without my permission or knowledge in the circumstances” where he has no confirmed equity ownership or other interest in the deal.

Mr Assal’s action is also asserting that King & Co breached the Financial Transactions Reporting Act by “failing to obtain” the required Know Your Customer (KYC) information on him prior to accepting the $2m that he wired to it.

However, Paul King, King & Co’s principal, in previous e-mailed replies to Tribune Business, denied his firm had violated the Financial Transactions Reporting Act’s (FTRA) customer due diligence requirements or any other Bahamian law. He branded the allegations, and legal claim, as “total nonsense” and “fabricated”, and hinted he may pursue Mr Assal for damages for “trying to besmirch” his and the company’s reputation.

“The firm and the firm’s client did not commit any violation of any Bahamian law,” Mr King told this newspaper, also defending Mr Harrington and Mr Kim. “The matter is presently before the Supreme Court and the firm has engaged King’s Counsel (KC) to represent its interest and to vigorously defend the suit. This claim is total nonsense, lacks merit, substance and is fabricated.

“I trust that the complainant understands that by trying to besmirch the firm’s reputation [he] exposes himself to damages. I have been practicing for 27 years, and no client or third party has ever made any such scandalous accusations against myself or the firm.We will see this matter to its end, and I am confident the firm will be vindicated and this case dismissed as lacking any merit.

“However, due to the fact that the matter is before the Supreme Court we are not at liberty to disclose pertinent facts. The case cannot and will not be tried in the public domain. Any further comments on the matter will be made by our attorneys.”