Golf carts are critical to the golf course operations since the length and hilly terrain would deter guests from golfing without carts, he said.
“The resort partnership will also require alternate arrangements for space for members and a pro shop.”
Kusumoto claims a representative of the hotel advised him the hotel would agree to commercially reasonable terms for an extension, but that “they would not extend or renegotiate the lease if Mr. Matthews is involved.”
Kusumoto said Ecoasis, at Matthews’ direction, skirted the hotel-contract issue and hired a contractor to build new cart-charging and storage facilities using shipping containers at an estimated cost of $500,000.
The new facilities are being built on driving-range land and required new cart paths. Kusumoto did not agree to the plan.
Sanovest claims it hasn’t received any audited financial statements since the end of 2018 from the development partnerships and will be unable to meet the bills as they come due, including $542,000 for accounting and legal services, a $300,000 default payment to the City of Langford for the Bear Mountain Parkway roadwork and $2 million owing vendors and other creditors.
Property taxes on Bear Mountain lands for 2024 are $1.6 million and due in early July.
Sanovest said legal claims against Ecoasis are mounting — $1.8 million by Langford for the parkway roadwork and $3.6 million by two developers claiming breaches of agreements.
Ecoasis applied to B.C. Supreme Court on May 10 to appoint a marketing agent and to approve the sale of about 10% of its land holdings at Bear Mountain — the proceeds of which would “fully retire the debt associated with Bear Mountain.”
Matthews alleges Kusumoto’s actions are threatening the “operational integrity” of Bear Mountain.
In the latest filing, Matthews said selling some Bear Mountain land parcels would generate funds to retire the loan, pay property taxes and meet other mounting expenses related to the development.
He said in a statement the Ecoasis court filings are in response to Sanovest’s refusal to approve significant land sales that would have resulted in $164 million in revenue, allowing the company to resume selling property and pay its bills.
Sanovest said in its court filing that while both sides agree Bear Mountain has significant value in the lands it owns, they “disagree on the appropriate strategy to realize on that value.”
Sanovest does not agree with Matthews’ application to subdivide, bundle and sell properties. It is seeking the receivership order to conduct a more transparent process, the court filing said.
Kusumoto said there are “irreconcilable differences” regarding the business.
“I have frequently sought to have the partnerships engage professionals to assess how they can proceed with the development of the site to maximize profitability,” Kusumoto said in his petition. “The partnerships have not completed this analysis and Mr. Matthews has advised me that he would prefer the sale of lots and bulk sale sites that would generate immediate profits. I have not agreed to those sales … without complete analysis, I believe the partnerships may have unrealized profits and/or be left with properties that are difficult to sell or develop.”
Kusumoto cites “management concerns” that he claims require a court-appointed receiver. Among the claims in the petition are alleged fees paid to Matthews without a formal agreement, the use of cash and questions about expenses charged to corporate credit cards.
https://www.timescol...request-9020296
Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 June 2024 - 04:01 AM.
STAY CONNECTED TO VIBRANTVICTORIA
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CITIFIED VICTORIA
