The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Chief Justice has dismissed claims of “deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of confidence” that were levelled against Baha Mar’s original developer in relation to a separate 333-acre mixed-use development he was planning at Clifton Bay.

Sir Ian Winder, in a January 5, 2026, verdict ruled that he preferred Sarkis Izmirlian’s evidence to the “embellishment” of Federico Riege, a Bahamas permanent resident and former managing director at Julius Baer, over the acrimonious legal battle triggered by their potential partnership in The Preserve project, which was to be located in southwestern New Providence near Jaws Beach.

The judgment, which is largely a triumph for Mr Izmirlian since the Supreme Court only awarded Mr Riege some $96,537 as compensation for his work on the project, reveals that The Preserve site was acquired from the estate of the late Baroness Nancy Oakes, daughter of Sir Harry Oakes, the Canadian gold mining tycoon and the then-British Empire’s richest man, whose summer 1943 murder rocked The Bahamas.

The dispute between Mr Izmirlian and Mr Riege largely revolved around whether the former had agreed to give the ex-Julius Baer manager a 10 percent ownership interest in the land comprising the 333-acre Preserve site or if this was supposed to be a share of the development’s profits. Sir Ian and the Supreme Court found it was the latter.

Mr Riege, an Argentine national, alleged that The Preserve was his “original idea” that he conceived “from his passion for, and knowledge of, equestrian activities, polo in particular, and his extensive network of contacts in the international equestrian/polo community.

“The plaintiff’s vision for the project was to create a destination with a focus on equestrian activities, particularly polo, and incorporating other features such as residential real estate investment opportunities affording qualified purchasers accelerated consideration for annual or permanent residence applications in The Bahamas in accordance with the policies of the Bahamas Investment Authority,” his legal filings asserted.

“The plaintiff's concept for the project included building a sustainable ecological community around equestrian activities (such as polo/dressage/jumping), including a club house, a boutique hotel, restaurants, shopping village and residential properties around the fields.”

Following discussions with potential interested investors, Mr Riege set about identifying suitable real estate and alighted on a 333.323 acre tract that was owned by Nassoak Ltd. This company was owned by a trust that formed part of the late Baroness Oakes’ estate, and the Argentine initiated negotiations to acquire the property.

He then mentioned his plans to Mr Izmirlian when he encountered the latter at a social function in May 2016, and the original Baha Mar developer expressed interest in investing in it.

“In order to induce the plaintiff to fully disclose his proprietary information relating to the project, and to participate in the development and planning of the project, and to negotiate and secure the deal for the acquisition of the land, the first defendant [Mr Izmirlian] represented to the plaintiff that he would receive a 10 percent ownership interest in the land, which said interest was to be his reward for having come up with the idea, found the land, successfully negotiating the acquisition of the land and his continued involvement in the ongoing development and planning of the project,” Mr Riege alleged.

He added that this offer was confirmed on multiple occasions, and that he “successfully negotiated a purchase agreement at a very favourable price with the trustees and beneficiaries of Nassoak” that represented between a 17.1 percent to almost a 52 percent discount on the prevailing market price.

“The Plaintiff's offer dated June 23, 2016, to Nassoak Ltd, Bruno Roberts and Curtis Lowell, senior executor of the estate of Baroness Nancy Oakes von Hoyningen-Huene (the trustees), to purchase the land at the price of $58,000 per acre for the 333.2 acre parcel was accepted by the trustees and a signed accepted copy was returned to the plaintiff under cover of a letter dated 27 June, 2016, from Nassoak Ltd’s attorneys McKinney Bancroft and Hughes,” Mr Riege alleged.

“The plaintiff was instrumental in the project, sourcing the land and putting all the stakeholders and the deal together; he was able to negotiate a price of $58,000 per acre for the land, which was well below the market price, which was $70,000 to $120,000 per acre.” Mr Riege alleged that he continued to work on moving The Preserve forward “in reliance” on allegedly being told he would have a “10 percent economic interest in the land”.

However, he claimed that Mr Izmirlian reneged on this promise. The Baha Mar founder’s attorneys, on November 16, 2018, informed him that there appeared to be “no prospect” that he and Mr Riege could reach a formal agreement on the latter’s interest in The Preserve.

They wrote: “Your insistence on an immediate ownership equity interest in the investor in the property is not acceptable for many reasons, including the significant initial and continuing capita! outlay by the investor and the absence of any guarantee of profitability.

“Agreement on the structure of the economic interest for your involvement was preliminary to our client agreeing the details and terms of a partnership agreement. This is no longer possible.” The letter specifically referred to this “economic interest” being governed by a profit-sharing arrangement.

“The first defendant has, in breach of confidence, taken for his exclusive benefit the plaintiff’s unique idea for the development of the project on the land and excluded the plaintiff from participation in the project and economic interest in the land,” Mr Riege alleged of Mr Izmirlian. “The plaintiff's unique idea, and his opportunity to acquire the land and develop the project with other investors if necessary, has been taken from him by means of.. deception.”

These claims were vehemently denied by Mr Izmirlian, who rejected Mr Riege’s assertion that he took the latter’s proprietary information for his own benefit. “Any information disclosed by the plaintiff was done so without restriction of use as part of negotiations towards the prospect of a formal written and signed agreement,” he countered.

“It is denied that the concept of a polo-based community was proprietary information or capable of being so. It is averred that several other residential developments in the western end of New Providence considered offering polo grounds and or equestrian lots” including Albany and Lyford Cay.

And, rejecting claims that Mr Riege was offered a 10 percent interest in The Preserve’s land, Mr Izmirlian added: “From the inception as expressed in the email dated July 10, 2016, the first defendant had the intention to give the plaintiff an economic interest based on the profits of the polo-based community on the condition that the plaintiff fulfill his obligations and subject to a detailed written agreement.

“The structuring of the agreement proved to be a difficult task and was never settled because at all material times the plaintiff kept insisting on terms that were unacceptable to the first defendant and had never been contemplated by the first defendant.” Mr Izmirlian also accused Mr Riege of misrepresenting his connections with polo communities and associated investors, and said negotiations between the two sides ultimately broke down.

Giving evidence at the trial, Mr Izmirlian, himself a Lyford Cay resident, “maintained that he only ever discussed and intended to promise Mr Riegé a 10 percent economic interest in the deal, specifically as a profit share, not an ownership interest in the land itself.

“When confronted with an e-mail he sent to Mr Riegé stating: ‘As far as our agreement, you will have a 10 percent economic interest in the land’, he insisted that this was always meant to refer to a profit share, not to an ownership or equitable interest in the land,” Sir Ian wrote.

“He distinguished between an ‘economic interest in the land’ (as referenced in an e-mail) and actual ownership, stating that the intention was always a profit share, not a direct interest in the land or company. He asserted that if Riege had signed the agreement and earned the profit share, he would have been entitled to 10 percent of the profits, calculated as revenue minus costs, but not to a share of the land or company itself.”

Describing Mr Izmirlian’s testimony further, the Chief Justice added: “Izmirlian described the negotiation process as protracted, with Riegé frequently changing his mind and not committing to signing the agreement. He claimed that after two years of negotiations, he gave Riegé an ultimatum to sign the final version or receive nothing…

“Izmirlian stated that Riege wanted to use his profit share agreement to obtain permanent residency in The Bahamas, but legal advice was that this was not possible. He said he was clear with Riege that the agreement would not entitle him to residency. Both parties agreed that Izmirlian's involvement in the project would remain confidential and that Riegé would not disclose his name without approval.

“Izmirlian confirmed that he was the one who purchased the land and that Riegé 's role was to act as a representative in negotiations with the owners, but that Riegé was not promised a 10 percent ownership interest in the land for this work. He stated that Riege never signed any agreement, and therefore, in his view, had no enforceable rights… Izmirlian denied any dishonesty, bad faith or intent to deceive Riegé.”

Sir Ian, summing up the written evidence and trial testimony, said: “In summary, the evidence reveals a complex and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to formalise a business relationship between Riegé and Izmirlian, characterised by misunderstandings, shifting positions and a failure to reduce key terms to a signed agreement.

“There was no binding agreement, as Riegé never signed the final version, and that any entitlement Riegé might have had was contingent on execution of the formal agreement and the terms as drafted by the lawyers.”

Analysing all that had happened, the Chief Justice said: “Having heard all the witnesses, considered the evidence provided in support of their testimony and observed their demeanour as they gave evidence, I have no hesitation in indicating that I preferred the evidence of Izmirlian and his witness to that of Riege. I found that Riegé, who was not the dominant partner in the business relationship, was prone to embellishment to support his version of the facts….

“On the evidence which I accept, I am satisfied that Izmirlian never agreed to, or intended to give, Riegé any ownership interest in the land upon which the development was intended to be built. I find that his choice of the word ‘economic interest’ rather than ‘ownership interests’ or just ‘interest’ was deliberate.

“I am also satisfied that such interest, as was agreed, was limited to the development such that, in the event the development did not proceed, there was no expectation that he would retain a 10 percent interest in the land upon which the development was intended to be built…. My ultimate view is that there was no agreement between the parties as the parties were never at idem on the crucial terms of the arrangement. I am also satisfied that agreement was subject to the parties entering into a more formal agreement.”

As a result, Sir Ian found that Mr Riege’s claim of “deceit” had not been proven, adding: “I did not find that Izmirlian made the representation alleged by Riegé. Izmirlian never told Riege that he would receive a ‘10 percent ownership interest in the land’.” And the breach of confidence claim was dismissed on similar grounds.

The only area where the Argentine enjoyed some success was the award by Sir Ian of $96,537 for his work and contribution towards the project, which was equivalent to just 0.5 percent of the $19.307m purchase price for the 333-acre Preserve property.