Tales From the COURTS IX – The CLICO AFFAIR Involving the FSC and the BIPA

June Fowler, head of BIPA

June Fowler, head of BIPA   Photo credit: Caribbean360

BU is perplexed by the latest news in this mess, in which it is reported that the BIPA (Barbados Investors Policyholders Alliance) aka CLICO investors – represented by Mr Alair Shepherd QC – has refused to stay the action against the CLICO directors. It is noted that the FSC is represented in this matter by Mr Adrian King.

BU’s attention was initially grabbed (or as it transpires, misdirected and sidetracked) by the fact that Mr Shepherd and Mr King both practice out of Inn Chambers and BU asked for clarification that, although Mr Shepherd and Mr King both practice from the same chambers, they are NOT partners, but ARE, in fact, individual counsel who simply share facilities. As such, therefore, there is no impropriety, nor does BU even suggest such of the two counsel named.

That disclaimer and clarification having now been made, BU asks its family and legal eagles to weigh in as to whether BIPA has the standing to bring its action against the CLICO directors, or not. If not, as this whole CLICO mess is of massive importance to Bajans in general, on what basis BIPA has refused to stay its action? Is there any merit in pursing an action that will be stayed at the end of the day?

BU, which first disclaims that it this is in any way a legal opinion, sets out its impressions gained from archives and from a reading of the Barbados Companies Act Cap 308 as follows:

Some years ago, BU posted the decision of the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001 (written on behalf of the panel consisting of Waterman AJ, Belgrave AJ and delivered by the Honourable Errol Chase CHB JA, the chairman of the panel) and confirmed by the Privy Council (Hoffman LJ) in which Chase AJ started his judgement on behalf of an unanimous panel by giving a scholarly, yet easily understandable to the layman, and precedent-supported dissertation on the difference between the Barbados Companies Act Cap. 308 of the Laws of Barbados and the former Act, being the Companies Act 1910.

BU’s impression gained from this judgement was that prior to 1986, Barbados’ corporate laws had followed those of the United Kingdom. However, post 1986, all Barbados corporations had been required to be “continued” under the new Act (Cap. 308) which, in its turn, followed the Canada Corporations Act 1975.

The conclusion of Chase AJ is set out in paragraph 22 of his judgement, wherein he states:

“Further, section 95(3) of the [Companies] Act makes it unequivocally clear that the person to whom the directors of a company owe their duty is the company, not to the shareholders, not to the creditors, not to the general public, but to the company itself.”

For clarity, BU cites section 95 of the Companies Act Cap. 308.

“Duty of Directors and Officers

95. (1) Every director and officer of a company in exercising his powers and discharging his duties must

(a) act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company; and

(b) exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

(2) In determining what are the best interests of a company, a director must have regard to the interests of the company’s employees in general as well as to the interests of its shareholder.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) on the directors of a company is owned by them to the company alone; and the duty is enforceable in the same way as any other fiduciary duty owned to a company by its directors.

(4) Every director and officer of a company must comply with this Act and the regulations, and with the articles and by-laws of the company, and any unanimous shareholder agreement relating to the company.

(5) Subject to subsection (2) of section 133, no provision in a contract, the articles of a company, its by-laws or any resolution, relieves a director or officer of the company from the duty to act in accordance with this Act or the regulations, or relieves him from liability for a breach of this Act or the regulation.”

Chase AJ goes on in paragraph 23 of his judgement, to cite the Canadian case of:

Pelling v Pelling et al (1981), B.C.S.C. 130. D.L.R. (3) 761 at page 762, where Berger J. in dismissing a shareholder’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty, said:

“there is no fiduciary obligation between shareholders, and no general fiduciary obligation owed by a director to a shareholder. A director’s duty is to the company; he has no fiduciary obligation to the shareholders…..”

BU can find nowhere any subsequent case in which the decision of Chase AJ, as confirmed by the Privy Council, has been reversed or set aside by a court of competent and superior jurisdiction and therefore the Barbados courts are, it would seem to BU, bound by this ruling – and by the law as set out in the Companies Act Cap. 308.

Can BU’s legal eagles shed any further light or provide any opinions on this?

BU goes further, in so far as BIPA (as a party to the action is concerned) in asking its legal eagles for clarification as to whether as an association, it has any standing at all to bring such an action against the directors of CLICO in the name of the association. After all, the association is itself not a shareholder in CLICO, nor, so far as we can see, is this a class action of shareholders. It seems to BU that BIPA is acting as an agent in this, but so far as BU is aware, an agent has no right to bring such an action, only the shareholders themselves can do that in their own names. IF BU is correct (and we are very open to dissent, discussion and advice on that) then this action is fatally flawed from the get-go and doomed to be stayed.

On its Facebook site BIPA sets out its mission statement as:

“BIPA is a non-profit organisation which was formed out of the coming together of policyholders of the bankrupt insurance companies, CLICO and BAICO who are seeking to get their money back using the legal system to achieve this goal.” [BU’s emphasis]

While BU applauds and encourages the BIPA intentions and is certainly 100% behind holding CLICO and BAICO to account, it sincerely questions the grounds of this latest and asks if in this case “using the legal system” is prudent…….or a possible mis-use and whether the stay BIPA has refused to agree to may not inevitably be granted by the courts, based “unequivocally” (the word used by Chase AJ) on both statute and precedent?

It is noted solely as a by-the-way that the losing counsel in Appeal No. 17 of 2001 were Mr Alair Shepherd QC acting in association with Mr Adrian King.

We are, frankly, confused on this one and we hope that BU’s legal eagles will assist us to understand what is going on, for clearly Mr Shepherd QC knows something that is completely obscured from the scope of BU’s layman knowledge. We would like to know what it is. For to quote BIPA’s Facebook statement:

“The ongoing CLICO and BAICO situation is without doubt the most disgraceful financial debacle Barbados has ever witnessed. For nearly four years now it has devastated the lives …of 35,000 Barbadians, most of whom can least afford it, particularly the elderly.”

BU ENDORSES THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT RESERVATION OF ANY KIND.

In a country of approximately 285,000 souls, something that has “devastated the lives …of 35,000 Barbadians, most of whom can least afford it, particularly the elderly,” requires more journalistic investigation than the mere bald statement that BIPA has refused to agree a stay of the action against the CLICO directors. It requires an investigation on the chances of success of such an action and whether good money is not being thrown after bad.

And it is no good claiming that the matter is sub judice and that BU should not comment or question, as in any other free society with a functional press, such an action would be discussed in all media by legal experts, as to law and chances of success. In addition, elected members of the executive would be weighing in heavily with their views and statements of outrage and AGGRESSIVE suggestions of ways forward. Imagine that 12+% of the population of the United Kingdom (8.4 million souls) were affected by a situation like CLICO……imagine the press and investigative journalism feeding frenzy. There would be parliamentary inquiries, judge-led inquiries, police inquiries and a major international scandal and every UK MP would be fighting for air time to make their views known.

Well, according to BIPA, 12+% of Barbados’ population are victims of CLICO and, so far as we can see, not much is being done – and frankly a change of government in February 21 is highly unlikely to change this, given the deafening silence and the political games that has one party trying to blame another for a situation for which BOTH are clearly responsible. BU is fully on side with BIPA in any law-based action that can bring with it the chance of success and restitution for the CLICO investors.

Where BU and BIPA would part company is if the money of BIPA members, already egregiously harmed by CLICO, is being used by counsel to bring meritless litigation with little or nil chance of success – for which the losing party will have to pay the costs. For that would be to exacerbate the harm and loss and hardship already suffered by CLICO investors. All for nothing, except dollars in the pockets of the legal profession and the further clogging up of an already fully clogged and moribund court system under the administration of a chief justice who hasn’t a clue what is going on or, even if he had a clue – which he clearly does not, how to fix it.

And it is no good to say that this action is brought as a means of getting the matter before the CCJ, if, once it is before the CCJ, it fails. The CCJ is bound to apply the laws of Barbados, being the Barbados Companies Act Cap 308, not the 1910 Act. In the circumstances, and as a pure layman, BU does not see on what basis the precedent decision of Chase AJ can be overturned. It seems crystal clear and unshakeable and a matter of statute.

BU, having little or no legal training, does not pretend to know the answers. It merely presents its impressions and poses obvious questions and now affords the family and legal eagles the chance to weigh in, in the spirit of a true, functional and democratic press. We are, after all, the Fifth Estate and, in Barbados at any rate, charged with the responsibility of making up for the deplorable lack of duty of what calls itself the Barbados Fourth Estate. Also, frankly, the family as a whole is far brighter and better educated and much more on the ball than those posing as reporters in the Fourth Estate.

0 responses to “Tales From the COURTS IX – The CLICO AFFAIR Involving the FSC and the BIPA

  1. Of note:
    The Trinidad is financing the rebuilding and rebranding of Clico to be called Atrius after a US $3 billion bailout.

  2. @David. Agree with the layman on this. BIPA has no personam in this matter. Therefore, looks to me like an attempt to shelter the BIPA members from costs awards against them personally. Agree that the only people who will profit from this are the lawyers.

  3. It would be interesting to find out if Tariq Khan, the lawyer representing BIPA, factored the above when advising BIPA.

  4. I find the presence of Mr Adrian King very curious . I have seen the draft statement and the Government official named is the Supervisor of Insurances . That raised my eyebrows because there is now no such person . He has indeed been replaced by the FSC but the FSC is not one of the thirteen named respodents. The arguments raised in respect of sec 95 of the Companies are as solid as the day is long ; THE DUTIES OF DIRECTORS ARE OWED TO THE COMPANY ALONE . I cannot understand how this group, the BIPA , can claim standing . It will be interesting too to find out if they go to court and costs are awarded against them how they would satisfy those costs . The mind boggles .

  5. THE DUTIES OF DIRECTORS ARE OWED TO THE COMPANY ALONE

    Well, in this case, it seems that directors have screwed the company, and have therefore failed in their duties. In such a case, how can the company take them to court, when effectively, according to you, the directors are the company, not the shareholders?

  6. @peltdownman .
    You have obviously misconstrued what I have published above . Go back and read s 95 of the Act which is published and start from there .What have I said that could allow you to state ” according to you , the directors are the company ” ? Don’t confuse yourself.

  7. When will the policyholders get paid??? I knew some who have since died from stress.

  8. @legalese
    What other interpretation can I put on the statement that directors’ duties are to the company, not the shareholders? Who represents the company if the directors are derelict in their duties? Is it some nebulous entity floating around in space? Oh, and BIPA does have standing.

  9. Observing(...)

    @DAvid
    “The ongoing CLICO and BAICO situation is without doubt the most disgraceful financial debacle Barbados has ever witnessed.”

    I second the motion. To some degree it’s also the most disgraceful political debacle as well. BIPA like BSTU was out to sea from day one. I think they’re only now beginning to realise it. Does anyone know if the FSC acted on the JM’s recommendation and carried out the necessary investigations?

    Just Observing.

  10. The documents from that investigation more than likely disappeared as well. How do documents in the control of Prime Ministers disappear so easily???

  11. @Peltdownman

    BIPA has the right to test this matter in court. We will see if the timing of it is political soon.

  12. Gabriel Tackle

    @David
    You have done a service to BIPA.Let’s hope its membership act now.An Enquiry similar to what is going on in Trinidad seem to be the way to have gone in the first place but I keep saying Barbados is too small to claim to be a democracy in the true sense of the word.CLICO has been used as a political godfather to both parties moreso the Democratic Labour Party,I recall when Mia Mottley called for a judicial enquiry she was laughed at in the house by David Thompson and Freundel Stuart.That should have been the way to have gone since 2008.Do you notice how silent are our big shot legal luminaries who can be political when it suits them?Democracy you say?

  13. millertheanunnaki

    @ Observing(…) | February 5, 2013 at 9:49 AM |
    “Does anyone know if the FSC acted on the JM’s recommendation and carried out the necessary investigations?”

    Based on insider information nothing has been done to date.

    Seems like both the MoF & PM have put a gag order aka “do nothing” or “inertia order on any further investigations into the CLICO affair. The hope is that while the forensic report is sent to the File 13 storage cubby hole, the thief of people’s memory called Time would lead to a contrived death of the CLICO matter.

  14. @Tackle

    BU will again question the timing of this matter. Why not wait a few more weeks when we may get a new government with a different approach. Some thing is not adding up.

  15. millertheanunnaki

    @Think Differently | February 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM |
    “Barbadians, whether natural or otherwise are required by law to register foreign bank accounts with the Central Bank of Barbados. Failure to do so is a criminal offense….”

    Quite agree! And to imagine a DLP administration was armed for over 5 years with this criminally incriminating information and deliberately failed to enforce the laws of the land.

    How would you describe this contrived laxity? As a case of gross incompetence and total disregard for the laws of the country or is it a clear case of Aiding and Abetting known corrupt conmen in the execution of criminal activities?

    So while you are pursuing your ‘delayed’ pre-2008 investigations why not throw a wider dragnet and do an up-to-date sweep up to 2012? You might just be surprised at the blue and yellow fish caught in the net. Michael Lashley might just have to launder his way out of this wider criminal investigation.

    A really comprehensive sweep will certainly caught not only politicians from both sides but also their financial backers in the image of crooks like Leroy the Greenverbs King of con-artistry who is a proud owner of foreign accounts used to launder millions of the poor and innocent CLICO policy holders’ premium payments into a bottomless ponzi scheme of a pyramid pit.

    “Data Protection legislation does not trump the public’s right to know which politicians are violating the law in relation to unregistered bank accounts and whether those funds were honestly or fraudulently obtained.”

    The specific reference to Data Protection legislation is applicable to progressive countries not to banana republics like Barbados whose Prime Minister stood up in the highest Court of the Land and publicly absolved and exonerated all sitting members of the then Parliament from any allegations, charges or perceived criminal activities.
    Only those former BLP ministers not reelected in 2008 to the recently dissolved Parliament can fit your definition of politicians who violated the law and still holding bank accounts with alleged dishonestly and fraudulently obtained funds.

    You can either come again with your nonsense or really think differently and speak with a measure of sense and factual evidence.

  16. @peltdownman. What Legalese is trying to get through to you is that the directors are SOLELY responsible to the company and no one else. You say that the directors ARE the company, but that is WRONG. It is the SHAREHOLDERS who determine who the directors are and it is the SHAREHOLDERS who are enabled to vote out one set of directors and vote in another set – this is required to be done by the SHAREHOLDERS at an AGM – and an AGM is required under the Companies Act to be held no later than 15 months from the previous AGM.

    I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY (under the Companies Act Cap. 308) DO NOT NEED TO BE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY.

    Also, the shareholders can give notice to place a matter on the agenda of an AGM or, indeed, if they represent a sufficient percentage of shares, requisition an extraordinary AGM whereat they can table and have passed a resolution that will bind the Company to dismiss and/or to sue any directors or former directors for their breach of fiduciary duty that said director(s) owe the Company. So the action against the directors is more properly brought by the Company, not the shareholders. But the shareholders would have standing.

    Now, you also say that the BIPA has the standing to bring the action against the directors. That is arrant nonsense. The BIPA is NOT a shareholder of CLICO and as such it has no standing whatever in the matter. It is NOT A PROPER PARTY TO THE ACTION. I would estimate the chances of this action being stayed (in other words, failing) at an extremely high percentage rate.

    And at the end of the day, not one penny will go into the pockets of the BIPA members AND the CLICO directors will also be out of pocket. AND THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WILL HAVE BENEFITTED FINANCIALLY……WILL BE THE LAWYERS.

    @David. Tariq Khan was formerly practicing out of Inn Chambers, the same as Mr Shepherd QC and Mr King and has worked on cases in association with both Mr Shepherd and Mr King in the past. I impute no wrong-doing whatever by saying this and indeed discourage any such a scandalous interpretation, but am merely providing this information from the point of view of transparency.

    @Well Well | February 5, 2013 at 8:16 AM |”When will the policyholders get paid??? I knew some who have since died from stress.” Welcome to the Barbados Justice System which has managed to backdate justice by over 800 years to the time of the Plantagenet kings of England and before, when Magna Carta had not been signed. Welcome to the domain of a chief justice, judiciary and registrar and attorney general whose vast education seems not to have included the ability to read or understand either Magna Carta or the Barbados Constitution and a government (both D and B) who couldn’t give a shit.

  17. @Amused

    Thanks, BU is aware but for the reason highlighted hesitated to highlight so not to purport anything improper. In fact it is why we did not mention that Natasha King, the personal aide to late Prime Minister David Thompson is the wife of Adrian King.

  18. Think Differently

    @ David

    This current Prime Minister does NOT have any time for either Adrian or his wife Natasha.

  19. Hi David,

    You would have noticed I was away for a few days.

    My absence was not by accident.

    INTERPOL info. is now in the hands of those who must have it .

    ANTI – CORRUPTION BILL was debated and passed in the House before it was dissolved .

    MIA MOTTLEY and OWEN ARTHUR conspicuosly refused to take part in the debate !

    Barbadians will soon be able to see why.

    Stay tuned .

  20. It does not matter, Adrian has had his share.

  21. Fractured BLP

    One week since the gates fly , Dale Marshall has produced the joke of the political season.

    He said that the BLP campaign is financed by cake sales and car wash activities.

    So if the BLP believes their own story….how could they say the DEMS has wrecked the Barbados economy between 2008 – 2012 , people ain’t wukking , jobs losses increased , businesses closed down….

    So how come the BLP can find millions $$$$ to campaign their election in 2013:

    # from cakes sales and car washing to the UNEMPLOYED ????

    # from cakes sales and car washing to the BUSINESS PLACES ThAT ARE CLOSED DOWN ????

    But I forget for the BLP there is a good meaning for CAKES:

    C – carry
    A – away
    K – keep
    E – especially for
    S – self

    Keep tuned to a big screen near you !

  22. peltdownman

    I don’ profess to be possess ta much in between the ears, but I get that a company then is something more than just the shareholders? …Maybe the company is the staff and the owners combined right … no dah ain’ mekken nah sense nider … Who or what de f*ck is the Company

  23. Looking at the central legal actors in this sorry episode one can easily describe it at Alair and the Alairettes?

    It it has a stench it must be a cesspool.

  24. Thanks, Baffy. Exactly my point. We’re being told that the directors’ fiduciary duty is to the Company, not the shareholders. So what is the Company? I have never claimed that the directors are the Company, because quite clearly, they are not. When the Company has to take legal action, and that action is against the directors, who takes the action if not the shareholders? Wait a minute, we’ve been told that the directors owe no duty to the shareholders…………….. We could go round and round forever, but then maybe that’s the intention of the Act.

  25. David, let me ask you something. Both Tariq Khan and Alair Shepherd are fully aware of the financial status of BIPA. How do you know what arrangements they have made for reimbursement?

  26. @peltdownman

    A reasonable question and one which BU will deflect at this time. What may be said by some is that Tarique and Alair have a lot of common interest. Besides sharing a building and letterhead and Guyanes lineage they have other business interest. When we mix this all up what do we get?

  27. millertheanunnaki

    @ BAFBFP | February 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM |
    “Who or what de f*ck is the Company”

    A company is a fictitious legal person that can sue and be sued and without any moral compunction to exploit its customers or clients for the unconscionable financial gains of its legally protected and ring-fenced backers called shareholders.
    The policyholders might not be deemed as the shareholders in a private company unless it is a registered and classified in the eyes of the law to be a ‘Mutual Insurance” entity similar to the credit union business ownership model.

    The question to be asked is who were or are the legal shareholders in the trading arms of the Barbados-based CLICO business entities. Is it CLICO Holdings Barbados? Does it still exist as a legal entity?

    If so, then the aggrieved policyholders (net creditor clients) should be suing ‘Jointly and Severally’ CLICO Holdings (Shareholder company) and its agents (Directors).
    There is a case of negligence and lack of fiduciary duty for the directors to answer to the shareholder CLICO Holdings which in turn- standing as a separate legal entity called a company- can be sued by the policyholders for breach of contract and non-payment of debts.
    The FSC by undertaking the legal liabilities regulatory responsibilities of the erstwhile Supervisor of Insurance can also be enjoined in the suit brought by the BIPA.
    However, those policyholders who have stopped paying their premiums would be in breach of their contracts and by extension would have forfeited their legal right to recover any monies from the company called CLICO Holdings or any of its Barbados-based and registered trading subsidiaries.

    This just a layman, armchair or standpipe lawyer understanding of the conundrum as the miller cogitates while nodding off at the mill’s headstone reflecting on the wise words of that Jewish Rabbi that professed Christian Bajans including the priests, politicians and lawyers ought to heed and bring to bear on this vexed CLICO issue:
    Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11:46.

    Don’t expect any resolution to CLICO as long as the matter is tied up in legalese.
    “Legalese”, the legal doctor, on this blog can attest to the malignant sickness afflicting the patient that not even Jesus through St. Luke can cure but only Master Time through faded memories and the leveling scythe of the grim Reaper can bring closure to all!

  28. @Peltdown. I have to wonder if you really don’t understand or if you are deliberately trying to obfuscate.

    If the CLICO investors sued in their own names (because BIPA cannot do it for them as BIPA has no standing) they would have standing, BUT their personal assets could be pursued for any costs awards against them. I am betting that BIPA has no assets and you can’t get blood out of a rock stone. But this is not clever, it is bloody stupid as the action cannot get off the ground and these poor people will gain NOTHING, except another loss, albeit of only $20 each.

    And yes, we have no idea what arrangement BIPA has come to with its counsel. BUT, if I were a member of BIPA (and I have a relative who is, so I am going to try put them up to it) I would want chapter, rhyme and verse IN WRITING and signed as to: (a) an opinion letter from counsel, setting out the law they propose to follow and an estimate of the chances of success; and (b) a clear statement on what they are charging for this work. I would also want to see BIPA’s books.

    BIPA claims that 35,000 Bajans were harmed by CLICO and BIPA charges $20 each for membership. Do the math. That adds up to $700,000 if everyone joins up. I also know that as at 2006, Mr Shepherd QC’s fees were $750 per hour and I would think that today, with inflation, they are likely in the region of $1,000 per hour. I don’t know what the other Alairettes (as David calls them – most appropriate name – Alair, Adrian, Philip and Tariq – Alair and the Alairettes, the wannabe Barbados legal equivalent of Diana Ross and the Supremes) charge, but would doubt it is less than $600 per hour each. But, as I say, I don’t know what financial arrangement BIPA has come to. You seem to know quite a lot, so maybe you can enlighten us.

    But whatever it is, something is starting to smell rotten.

    @Miller. Not entirely correct, BUT ENTIRELY BRILLIANT.

  29. A’wight … a’wight … So a holding company is the share holder in the retail operation. But the directors are not responsible to this share holder, but to the company …

    Who or what de f*ck is the Company

  30. millertheanunnaki

    @ Amused | February 5, 2013 at 6:20 PM |
    “If the CLICO investors sued in their own names (because BIPA cannot do it for them as BIPA has no standing) they would have standing…”

    What a most interesting position to take, Amused!
    How come BIPA has so many top class legal luminaries like Khan & Shepherd QC advising them and this glaring weakness in capacity to sue is overlooked? We are sure that there must be at least a few more lawyers who have been conned including F S Stuart QC who should have been able to point out the legal cul-de-sac of moving in such a footless direction by the BIPA.
    But suppose the BIPA brings a “CLASS ACTION SUIT” similar to the Manual Life Policyholders’ suit brought against Manual Life Insurance in the Canadian Courts would such a move have sound legal footing in the local or regional Courts?

    The miller contritely defers to your higher wisdom on such legally esoteric matters with your own ‘Horace RUMpolean’ (emphasis on rum and not Sir John Mortimer’s brand of gin) inimitable way– “HWMBO” instead of ‘SWMBO’.
    But the miller’s deference only applies when it comes to the biggest con game in mankind’s search for higher knowledge and natural justice called LAW (LOL!!!).

  31. I thought that NIS and Inland Revenue can hold directors liable for amounts owed to those departments.
    If this is the case why cant BIPA sue tthe directors for money owed to policy holders.

  32. I am no lawyer but:

    What about the liability of directors under the Insurance Act?

    What about the provisions of the Companies Act under which directors may be held personally liable?

    What about the other parties named in the action? (The Attorney General, the auditors)

  33. Don’t know whether or not I am smarter than the CLICO “investors” including the Prime Minister and Peter Wickham and June Fowler, but I am glad as sh!t@ that when I find myself with a little $25,000 change in my pocket I give it to Little Johnny and tell him to lick it to sh!t@ up, which he proceeded to do by travelling to London, New York, Toronto, Disney and all ’bout de place.

    My money gone but at least it was spent on my own children and not by the children of the Prime Minister’s non leper friend.

    I say to myself, that if my children gine lick up my money after I de’d, they may as well lick it up when I living.

    So I broke but happy.

    My father always told me “Bajans too t’ief”

    Got caught in a Ponzi scheme once when I was 18. Lost 3 pounds=15 dollars., At the time my wages were $55 per week, so $15 dollars was a good chunk of my pay packet.

    Never got caught in a Ponzi again.

  34. I hope that Stanford reading this blog … Allan you awake …?

  35. millertheanunnaki

    @ Brutus | February 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM |

    Another layman commonsense question to ask is if the BIPA policyholders through a class action suit can sue jointly and severally the Prime Minister Fumble Stuart, the Minister of Finance Chris (suck ass) Sinckler and the Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados Dr. Delisle (brass bowl brash mouth)Worrell.

    These three esteemed men of character and integrity and competent officers of the State who gave, on numerous occasions, undertakings of an ironclad watertight contractual nature to the policyholders that their investments are safe and will be returned to them in due course.

    In simple layman understanding don’t these publicly announced firm commitments by these reputable gentlemen of a Leroy Parris comparable quality and association have any legal validity and standing as contracts in writing?
    By all means these verbal policy pronouncements must have had the required elements of contractual obligations. What about the following to be taken into account?

    An offer made by the Offeror- the three men of honour and consummate moral distinction (to make good any restitution needed because of wrongs committed by their friend and financier Leroy).

    An Offeree- the BIPA people (who formed themselves into a special interest group of one for all and all for one and accepted these conmen on their word being their bond).

    Consideration: What about the blood, sweat, tears, stress and, even death suffered by the policyholders? The mere fact that the BIPA people have religiously continued to pay their premiums as advised by the Minister of Finance to keep the accountants and lawyers feeding from the trough without taking to the streets and calling for the protected blood of Leroy Parris and Terrence Thornhill is testament to the Christian endurance of a conned naïve people manipulated by the politicians for their own electoral interest.

    To the legal luminaries of no obvious partisan blinkered political persuasion: Do we have a valid viably enforceable contract in hand as far the Court of Public Opinion is concerned?

  36. Check-This-Out

    United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced civil fraud charges against S.&P in Washington on Tuesday, accusing S.& P. and its parent, the McGraw-Hill Companies, of intentionally propping up ratings of shaky mortgage investments and setting them up for a crash when the financial crisis struck.

    Can Barbados Attorney General Ariel Brathwaite be far behind in announcing charges against Clico Barbados, Leroy Parris and the; three esteemed men of character and integrity and competent officers of the State who gave, on numerous occasions, undertakings of an ironclad watertight contractual nature to the policyholders that their investments are safe and will be returned to them in due course, accusing them of intentionally propping up ratings of Clico policies and setting them up for th loss of their life savings?

  37. @Miller. They can bring the action as a class action suit as they personally are the defendants. They cannot bring it through an association as the association is not a shareholder and has no standing.

    You also say, “……..the BIPA people (who formed themselves into a special interest group of one for all and all for one……” and I, knowing nothing of BIPA, ask if you are telling us that 100% of the CLICO investors are members of BIPA. I don’t think it is as much as 50%. I am sure I need say no more and the inference will be clear, at least to you.

    I am not involved in this CLICO mess in any way. Some years ago, I was urged to put money into CLICO, but, applying the priciple that “if it looks to good, it probably is, ESPECIALLY in the West Indies”, I declined. I also advised a relative of mine to decline as well, but greed won in their case and unfortunately they suffered for it (and continue to suffer) but they seem to think, Bajan like, that it is my fault they invested by specifically advising them not to. I have not looked into whether there is any case against Fumble and Co. Off the top of my head, I would say likely there is not. And any comments I have made here on BU on this matter are strictly directed to the report itself, with which I agree completely.

    So, with respect, I have to ask you if you would prefer that I “lost the plot” and spouted forth a lot of rhetoric that will stir people up and give them hope and then not get them anywhere at all?

    I would also ask if, were you in my place, you would look upon lawyers who KNOW that an action ought never to have been brought due to the fact that the party bringing the action is not a proper party (but that they are going to get paid anyway) and keep my peace. Would you? Like hell!!!

    Have you noticed that apart from Legalese, none of the usually legal contributors have surfaced? That invariably happens when a lawyer is caught with his pants down legally…..the outmoded idea of loyalty and fraternity that, in this day and age, has debased and destroyed the formerly noble practice of law and provided a safe haven for knaves and scoundrels.

    I am sure that remedies must exist in law for the BIPA members. BUT, these remedies do NOT exist through BIPA. They are far more likely to exist as a class action that does NOT involve BIPA. BIPA is standing in the way of these remedies and wasting time and resources and listening to false prophets with an agenda.

  38. @Amused

    No analysis from traditional media in a serious way. Just the dribble from the usual suspects.

  39. @ Amused
    ….so how would you know that BIPA is not a shareholder? What would it take for a member to transfer one share to the organization in order to facilitate this formality?
    …don’t you think that a first year law student would have addressed this issue BEFORE bringing the action?

  40. @Bush Tea

    You can answer your question by asking who is/are the shareholder(s) of CLICO? Is CLICO a private company?

  41. @Bushie. To be honest with you, the what-ifs are taking up too much of my time and no amount of what-ifs is going to alter the outcome of this one and a first-year law student would certainly not consider the action you are suggesting, unless he/she was out of Cave Hill. So this is the last what-if I will address. BU has asked some burning questions that people ought to take on board. If they are not prepared to do that, on their heads be it.

    So, here is the last. If a share was transferred to BIPA, quite apart from the fact that I do not believe this would give BIPA grounds and standing, BIPA would have had to have owned said share at the time the events being complained of occurred. Otherwise, BIPA would have acquired its share in the full knowedge of the events and circumstances and therefore would have no claim. Make sense? If I tell you that shares I am selling you are in a bankrupt company and yet you insist on buying them in the full knowledge that they are worth spit and the circumstances surrounding that, you cannot then afterwards come and complain.

    Does that answer you. Remember BIPA was set up for the express purposes it sets out in what BU has printed. So, do you still think that BIPA was (or could have been) a shareholder at the time complained of? Do you think that for this and other reasons, which I am too tired to go into, any law student (year not relevant) from a credible and reputable law facility would have pulled that one?

    See how silly this whole discussion is getting. My attitude now is that the CLICO investors (of which I am not one) must do what they feel is best for their interests and accept the consequences. And if that means that they are going to end up looking like blasted fools and losing their $20 dollars, their problem. Me gone.

  42. Point taken Amused.

    However, even with Bushies low opinion of lawyers, (particularly of the local variety) it is VERY difficult to accept that such a basic error could have been made after so many YEARS of time for contemplation.

    SURELY there must be something we are missing….

    But then again….
    Only in Barbados

  43. @Bush Tea

    Our job here is to ask questions in the interest of the public especially where lawyers are involved. BU is prepared to be corrected on some matters.

  44. There gotta be some legal recourse under international laws for all this thievery. It’s enough to give a person nightmares. obviously the culprits sleep well, no problem…………………is it just me or is this getting scarier.

  45. Tariq Khan has quite a nasty attitude and does not look any more honest than the next local lawyer, why would BIPA have him as their attorney is kinda worrying.

  46. @David

    Amused is quite correct about the timing of ownership of shares in any Class action suit. I am part of a Class action suit against a Company which imploded, I didn’t initiate any action but was contacted by a law firm in the USA as presumably they had a list of the shareholders. Prior to being accepted as part of the group I had to supply them with proof that I owned the shares before a certain date.

    I received a small amount of the funds dispersed, will receive some more in the future and continue to receive periodic reports but to all intents and purposes the bulk of my money (four figure amount) has gone through the eddoes.

    I took my chances subject to the vagaries of the Stock market but CLICO is a different kettle of fish, the deposits were not governed under Deposit Insurance similar to a Bank where in the event of a collapse the depositors will be reimbursed up to a certain amount (don’t know what it is for Barbados)

    It will be interesting to see whether people are throwing good money after bad.

  47. @Sargeant

    Was the company you were part to the class action suit a private company?

  48. @Bushie: Agree that “Our job here is to ask questions in the interest of the public……” As in any profession, there are the good and the bad and the in-betweens. But your caution re lawyers is not out of place, unfortunately.

    @Well, well. Sincerely doubt there are any remedies in international law. Yes, it appears to be getting scarier. Tariq is okay as a person…..nice enough guy. VERY English in speech…..as my friends at Uni used to say, “One elocution lesson too many.”

    @David | February 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM. Not quite sure what you are developing on what Sargeant said and am interested to see where you go with it. From the sounds of what Sargeant said, it was likely not a private company.

  49. Observing(...)

    @amused

    Kudos on clear and level headed contributions and
    explanations. I too agree that BIPA is spinning tot in mud at a significant expense. The CLICO monster is a creature of “government” and “government promises.”. Any solution or accountability will not (at least in this lifetime) come through systematic legal action. The government of the day, whose money was placed in CLICO, whose verbal promise was made to “save” CLICO, whose word the policyholders trusted and whose arms of comfort allowed infelicities to continue for at least 8-12 months after shit hit the fan…that government is the one who is ethically duty bound and morally obligated to bring closure and relief with punishment by laughter.

    Then again, morals and ethics is not the expected norm, far less when pals, godfathers and buddies are involved. .

    Just Observing

  50. @Observing. I took the chance that if I acted as your junior and did the exposition, you would pull the threads together and provide a masterful and brief summary. You have not disappointed me.

Post a comment and join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s