Submitted by BWWR
In its latest, Keltruth starts: “I was ribbed for omitting to mention two scandals in a recent post, PwC has other problems besides Nelson’s Canadian $500 million law suit!” The thrust of Keltruth’s article is to complain about shell companies in Barbados. So, let us examine this carefully.
Our example will be an Ontario corporation called – guess what – Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. The self-same Nelson that is the plaintiff in the $500 million law suit that exercises the mind of Keltruth almost exclusively. If you go online and use http://www.canada411.ca/ you can look up Nelson for yourselves. And guess what you will get……a notice that says: “No Listing for “Nelson Barbados Group Ltd.” were found in “Orillia”. Try expanding your search location”. Now, we know that Nelson’s address is the same as that of the law firm of the Goat (K. William McKenzie) Nelson’s counsel, so the address entered is correct, according to the Ontario corporate records. Yet it is not listed for a telephone. Yet, Keltruth complains of this same thing in relation to Barbados companies.
Next up, let us do a white pages search – same site – for Donald Best (or D. Best) in Orillia. Mr. Best is registered as Nelson’s sole director. Predictably, there are no listings for any D. Best in Orillia and some 120 listings for D. Best/Donald Best in Ontario.
Please see link detailing cost paid by Nelson Barbados Group Limited
When I was a young woman, many years ago, and I wanted to get in touch with Kingsland Estates Limited or any of the other sugar companies, I would not have found them in the telephone directory. I needed to know the name of the plantation or the name of the manager of the plantation I wanted to reach and that is what would be listed. The Knox family, all of them raised, financed, educated, housed and supported by Kingsland Estates, of which Madge was a “directing mind”, know this.
These days, now I am an antique (or just old, depending on your perspective) many companies operating in Barbados do the same as Nelson has done in Canada. Their registered office is that of the office of their attorneys-at-law or accountants. Exactly the same pertains in any major off-shore investment country. There is no obligation for any company to have a telephone number as long as there is an address listed for them at Corporate Affairs to which mail can be sent. This, Mrs Accountant Kathy Davis, is called a “Registered Office”. There is no obligation for any company to submit it and its officers to a Keltruth and BFP witch hunt by listing a telephone number at which it can be reached. If Keltruth and BFP want to question any of what they stigmatize, with no grounds whatsoever, as “shell companies” then they can write them a letter. Of course, they would then have to provide a return address and give their real names.
A shell company is precisely that. Wikipedia provides that, “A shell corporation is defined in Barron’s Finance & Investment Handbook as “a company that is incorporated, but has no significant assets or operations.” As there is no obligation for companies registered with Corporate Affairs Barbados or its Canadian counterpart in Ontario to list their assets, how the hell does Keltruth determine, other than through the now famous psychic abilities of Jane Goddard née Knox that these companies are shell companies. More to the point, is there any evidence to show that Nelson Barbados Group Limited is NOT a shell company? The “proof of the pudding” will be whether Nelson has assets that can be charged if it fails to pay its legal costs next week. I can’t wait to see what will happens there and if the Goat, like Alair Shepherd, will be the ONLY counsel whose costs are paid by the losers in the Kingsland saga.
Bottom line: Keltruth complains of people hiding behind the very corporate veils behind which Madge Knox/Allard/Goat are hiding and, of course, takes the view that while it is quite in order to do that in Ontario (specially if you happen to be them) somehow doing it in Barbados is wrong. Interesting theory. Will it survive?
Just prior to my departure, Brutus asked if I could find certain judgments in the Kingsland Estates matter. My source has come up trumps and I am able to post both the original judgment of Greenidge J. in High Court Action No. 1805 of 1998 and that delivered by Chase A.J. in the Appeal. I am very interested, Brutus and Pat, to get your “take” on them.
Some while ago, Keltruth complained, supported by its toady and alleged fellow-Allard-supported blog, BFP, that certain corporate files were missing from the Corporate Registry and inferred that these had been stolen. Myself and others with intimate knowledge of the office in question, took up the defence on BU of the Corporate Registry, staffed by decent, overworked Bajans who, with the best will and intentions in the world, sometimes misplace some of the masses of files in their care. We explained that in our experience these files do always turn up. It seems that this is what has happened and Keltruth has reported it. However, has Keltruth also had the honesty or integrity or class to apologize to the staff of the Corporate Registry for suggesting unambiguously that they were delinquent in their duty of care and professional standards? Hell no. But there again as my dear late mother used to say, “You can’t expect a silken purse out of Madge Knox’s ear.”
Finally, Keltruth, as usual, right at the top of its diatribe, gets it wrong. Nelson’s suit is expressed in US dollars, not Canadian dollars as Keltruth has said. And please, Keltruth, do not impugn the sovereignty of Canada and of the United States as you have repeatedly tried to do that of Barbados by telling us it is the same thing.
Related Links
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.