Carol, back to your original question, I read that article, as well as the rest cited above, and https://www.icij.org/investigations/cyprus-confidential/curacao-pension-fund-offshore-ansary/. While you may already know this, from those articles, i see that Ennia is primarily an insurance company and when the Curacao Central Bank decided that Ennia did not have enough assets to pay its debts, such as insurance claims and pensions, they took over Ennia and are trying to collect as much assets as they can to meet those claims. Eventually, my guess is the Curacao government willl likely have to cover the deficit as a political measure.

As part of that process to collect assets, the Central Bank trying to get a judgment against Ansary and related companies. In basic terms, Ennia would take in premium payments and then make investments to generate monies to pay insurance claims and pensions, and if it had money left over , it would distribute profits to its shareholders. One investment was the purchase of Mullet Bay. The Sept 2023 court opinion dealt, in part, with a claim by Ennia that Ansary, while in control of Ennia, distributed moneys to shareholders ( another company owned by him ) claiming Ennia was doing very well, but Ennia claims that was a lie, and they want Ansary to pay back dividends that were paid to shareholders from 2009 through 2015. There are also claims that he diverted other monies to a variety of shell companies, and for other things that were not proper investments. While a lower court did find he had diverted over 1 billion Naf, on appeal, the court reduced the judgment, The only Mullet Bay issue in the Sept 2023 appeal was whether, in 2009 through 2015, Mullet Bay was worth as much as Ansary claimed on the books of Ennia. If not, it is likely the court could find that if they substituted the real value of Mullet Bay at those times, that Ennia would not have been able to declare a dividend to Ansary's companies , and thus the Central Bank may obtain a judgment against Ansary and his companies for some or all of those dividends. That part was not decided by the appeals court and instead that was sent back to be determined by the lower court. I didn't see any mention of this in the articles, but if in fact Ansary was overvaluing Mullet Bay on the books from 2009 through 2015, that is precisely why he would not have wanted Ennia to sell it or develop it, because that would show the true value.

In the end, since Mullet Bay is owned by Ennia, which is controlled by the Central Bank of Curacao, and Ennia apparently has lots of underfunded obligations, including pensions owed to residents of Curacao, at some point I would think the Central Bank would sell Mullet Bay. The Central Bank's primary obligation is to generate funds so the pensioners won't see their pensions cut, and yes, that means they would sell to the highest bidder. The article I cited suggests that Ennia is short approx $650,000,000 and that while the Netherlands offered to loan that to the Central Bank, the Central Bank said no because it is already struggling to pay back its Covid loans. While they may recoup some of that loss from Ansary, as the Central Bank pointed out in the article you listed, their mandate is to protect the policy holders of Ennia -so they if they have a strong offer from a developer, they don't have the right to take a much lesser offer from someone who is going to do a more sympathetic development of Mullet Bay.