Baha Mar CEO Sarkis Izmirlian said the government’s effort to appoint a liquidator for the resort is a “perilous” path that could be costly and waste the assets of Baha Mar.

Izmirlian made this comment on Saturday in a letter to his employees, following Friday’s court hearing, where it was announced that on September 4 the Supreme Court will decide whether to approve the government’s petition to appoint a liquidator to manage Baha Mar’s assets.

Izmirlian expressed that the “perilous” path of liquidation could waste Baha Mar’s assets to the significant disadvantage of its creditors, citizens (employees) and the longer term economic potential of The Bahamas.

“A liquidator is a liquidator, not a party that knows Baha Mar, knows how to manage the resort, or has an economic and personal stake in its successful opening,” Izmirlian said.

He explained that the dangers of what the government has unleashed on Baha Mar is reflected in the motion filed last Thursday by Rosewood Hotels and Resorts in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court seeking to terminate its contract with Baha Mar.

In this filing, Rosewood stated that its decision is principally driven by what it perceives to be its vulnerabilities as a result of the Bahamian court’s actions.

As a result, Izmirlian assured that Baha Mar will vigorously oppose this motion in the U.S. Court at the appropriate time.

However, Izmirlian said he is highly confident that the Chapter 11 process now underway provides the most assured path for Baha Mar to be completed properly and opened successfully as soon as possible.

“I want to reiterate that we, who are Baha Mar, are committed to doing all we can realistically do within the Chapter 11 process to resolve the issues that have impacted Baha Mar and prevented it from opening. We have been working for over a decade to create Baha Mar. We are almost there. We are not quitters,” he added.

Last Friday, Baha Mar’s attorney James Corbett, QC, argued in the Supreme Court that there is no need to appoint a provisional liquidator to manage Baha Mar because the documented purpose of a provisional liquidator is contrary to the definition which lists the appointees as parties in charge of the winding up of a company.