Bloomberry Resort Corp. chairman Enrique Razon vowed to “vigorously oppose” a case filed against him by Global Gaming Asset Management Philippines (GGAM) which he accused of “forum-shopping.”
GGAM has sued Razon and several companies associated with him in New York to enforce an arbitral award GGAM won in Singapore against Bloomberry.
In February, Bloomberry announced the Singapore High Court has ruled with finality on the arbitration case filed by GGAM against Bloomberry after the termination of the management contract between the two to run Bloomberry’s Solaire Resort in 2013.
The Singapore High Court’s decision stemmed from a 2016 ruling by the Singapore international arbitration court citing the dismissal of GGAM as unjustified, effectively awarding to GGAM ownership of 921.18 million Bloomberry shares as part of the agreement, apart from ordering Bloomberry to pay GGAM $100 million in lost management fees.
Bloomberry argued then the case is not self-executing and must be enforced through a court in the Philippines where it is to be enforced.
“Even now the enforcement of that arbitral award is on appeal in the Singapore Court of Appeals. This is in addition to a court case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Philippines which issued a writ of attachment and writ of preliminary injunction against the shares in Bloombrtty that GGAM was trying to sell while arbitration was pending. GGAM’s action to lift the attachment and injunction issued by the RTC is even now pending in the Philippine Supreme Court,” Razon said in a statement over the weekend.
Bloomberry said “ Mr. Razon (and the companies associated with him) will vigorously oppose this shameless GGAM forum shopping and attempt to enforce an arbitral award against those who are not a party to the arbitration.”
“GGAM has previously dragged Mr. Razon in a suit in Hong Kong against Deutsche Bank to compel the release of the shares in Bloomberry subject of the RTC attachment and injunction. GGAM had to ask the Hong Kong court to suspend the proceedings because of the subsisting Philippine court actions. GGAM had to pay the cost of Mr. Razon as the Hong Kong court considered GGAM’s implicating Mr. Razon there unwarranted,” Bloomberry added.