WILLEMSTAD – Villapark Fontein will be allowed to call witnesses in an attempt to prove that GI-RO Settlement Holding offered the developer an additional ANG 350,000 loan in 2021 under an arrangement that would also eliminate penalty interest. The Joint Court of Justice has not yet determined whether the alleged offer was actually made.
The disputed conversation allegedly took place on May 12, 2021, while Fontein was trying to resolve its financing situation following Girobank’s decision not to continue extending its loans.
Villapark Fontein
According to Villapark Fontein, GSH offered during that meeting to provide an additional ANG 350,000. The money would have allowed the developer to accelerate repayment of its existing debt.
Fontein maintains that the proposal also included an agreement that no penalty interest would be charged.
That claim could have financial consequences because Fontein eventually paid ANG 168,959 in penalty interest when it fully settled its debt in September 2022.
The Court has not accepted Fontein’s account as established fact. Instead, the developer has been given the opportunity to substantiate its version of events through witness testimony.
Only after hearing that evidence will the Court decide the remaining portions of the dispute.
The case originates from financing provided by Girobank beginning in 2011 for the development of Villapark Fontein. When Girobank announced at the end of 2020 that it would no longer extend the financing, Fontein had to find another source of funding.
The loans later came under GI-RO Settlement Holding, which assumed part of Girobank’s loan portfolio.
A separate issue involving penalty interest has already been decided in Fontein’s favor. The Court found that an email from GSH’s attorney in September 2021 gave the developer until the end of December that year to repay its debt without making clear that penalty interest would continue to accrue.
Because GSH failed to explicitly state that condition, the Court ruled that Fontein could reasonably assume that no penalty interest would be charged during the extension.
The alleged May 2021 agreement is different. Unlike the September email, the Court currently lacks sufficient evidence to establish what exactly was said or agreed during the earlier meeting.
The next phase of the case will therefore focus on witness evidence surrounding that conversation. Only then will it become clear whether Villapark Fontein is entitled to recover an additional portion of the penalty interest it paid.