A proposed state-of-the art Swiss opera house is at the centre of a lawsuit for excess of $100 million, pitting Butterfield Trust Bermuda Ltd (BTB) against Swiss arts foundations Rutli Stiftung and Stiftung Salle Modulable.

Funding for the opera house — held in a BTB-administered trust called the Art 1 Trust — was a ‘done deal’ according to a Bermuda-based director of a Foundation closely associated to that trust.

But BTB trustee for the Art 1 Trust Patrice Minors was thrown into the limelight during the first day’s proceedings for insisting that funding for the project be stopped. Ms Minors, who is no longer with BTB, was a member of the Progressive Labour Party Government and held Ministerial posts.

The Swiss Foundations whose role is to build the opera house is suing BTB to release the funds from the Art 1 Trust. The case opened before the Hon Ian Kawaley yesterday and is expected to take six weeks.

The Art 1 Trust is understood to hold a multi-billion dollar sum, and has already provided funding for various multimillion projects via two foundations, called the Art Mentor Foundation and Student Mentor Foundation.

In the case of the opera house, it was originally envisioned that $126 million in funding would go from the Art 1 Trust in Bermuda to Rutli Stiftung and Stiftung Salle Modulable which were set up to administer the project.

Robert Stewart, who was a Bermuda-based director of the Art Mentor Foundation, and whose witness statement was read in court and not challenged by BTB, said the Trust settlor, Christof Engelhorn, saw the opera house as his legacy to the city of Lucerne.

Mr Engelhorn had made the money that went into the trust from his family’s sale of German pharmaceutical giant Boehringer Mannheim to Hoffmann La Roche, reportedly for DM17 billion in 1997. He had one surviving daughter, Vera Engelhorn and two grandchildren, Philipp and Julie Engelhorn.

Alexander Layton QC, acting for Stiftung Salle Modulable, reading from Mr Stewart’s witness statement, said: “Thus, the donation was instigated by Mr Engelhorn. I was told that he viewed the Salle Modulable as his legacy to Lucerne and that he hoped it would secure the city’s place as a leading cultural centre. I understood that Mr Engelhorn decided on the members of the foundation board as he had done with the boards of the Art Mentor Foundation and Student Mentor Foundation ... The Salle Modulable project as well as the Art Mentor and Student Mentor projects came up in periodic review meetings.

“These meetings were attended by Butterfield, the protectors, the beneficiaries’ investment advisers and others. My recollection of these discussions was that the Salle Modulable project was viewed by everyone at the meeting in the same way as the Student Mentor and Art Mentor. It was known to be something that Mr Engelhorn wanted and something that would therefore go ahead. There was no question over this. It was a done deal.”

Mr Stewart described the process of donating funds. “Mr Engelhorn’s requests were communicated to Dr Wolfgang Scheuer or Mr Christian Weinhold, protectors of the Arts Trust. The two gentlemen would e-mail Butterfield with basic information about the amount of the donation and the purpose. I was provided with copies of these e-mails at the time and was aware that the donations were for the purpose of charitable and philanthropic projects in Lucerne in which Mr Engelhorn was involved ... I was obviously not privy to consideration given by Butterfield to such e-mails, but it is my belief given the way things worked and the sort period of time that elapsed between a donation request and Butterfield communicating its agreement that Butterfield simply went along with them, without taking a formal trustee decision and without the attendant formalities and trustee paperwork.”

Mr Layton argued contractual points raised through correspondence between the parties, and also pointed to aspects of the correspondence to show that the trustees had been passive until later in the process, when it appeared a decision had been made to stop the project. The trustees, who included Graham Jack as well as Mrs Minors, then proactively pursued the stopping of the project.

The QC raised the issue of a newspaper article headlined ‘Town Council Retreats’. “The impression was that the whole thing lacked political support,” he said.

“What you have is this group of protectors and beneficiaries trying to stop funding without adequate information — a newspaper report, ... political speculation,” said Mr Layton.

Earlier in the proceedings, he had argued that Christof Hamm, whose partner is Mr Engelhorn’s daughter Vera, had played a central role in BTB’s decision to stop funding. he said: “We say the defendant was influenced by Mr Christof Hamm to withdraw the funding.”

Mr Layton later quoted Mr Hamm’s correspondence congratulating Ms Minors “for holding the line that the project will not be done”.

Mr Stewart, describing Mr Hamm, said: “Unlike other family members who were a pleasure to deal with, Mr Hamm could be very difficult. When I became involved in the structure Stefan Engelhorn (Christof Engelhorn’s son) was treated as the head of the family and had a central role. His premature death in 2002 created a power vacuum. Because of Mr Hamm’s involvement in the Manhattan family office, his position as Vera Engelhorn’s partner, and because (Mr Engelhorn’s grandchildren) Julie and Philip were young, Mr Hamm was allowed to fill this vacuum. It seemed to me that Butterfield and the protectors felt the need to report to him and seek his approval.

“He expressed his opinions in forthright terms and was critical of anyone who did not agree with him or do his bidding. At times he could be very unpleasant. I have copies of many e-mails from Mr Hamm to Mr Jack and others making critical comments.

“It seemed to me that Mr Hamm was allowed by the protectors and Butterfield to assume a position of central control over the trusts and underlying companies.”