The following has been delivered from a usual reliable BU source. BU has taken the decision to publish in the interest of pursuing transparency and truth in what can be labelled The CLICO Mess.
It has become public knowledge that the Judicial Management team has compiled its Report on the CLICO matter. However, BU has been alerted that this Report might not see the light of day because of a very fundamental legal obstacle. It has become known to Mr Parris’ legal advisers that one of the Managers charged with the production of the said said Report pursuant to the work it has been doing is MR PATRICK TOPPIN .
This is a very significant fact. Mr Toppin was a former employee of CLICO until he was DISMISSED by the Company then under the management of Mr Parris . It has also become known that there was a subsequent legal battle between the two. The informed view now being expressed is that against this background, Mr Toppin should have recused himself from acting as an official in ANYTHING to do with CLICO far more to act as a member of a judicial management team which could possibly pass judgment on the company . We have been advised that at the heart of the matter is the requirement for any such body like the Judicial Management team to observe the RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ; the particular rule being the RULE AGAINST BIAS .
Coming at this stage of the CLICO investigations, this revelation is of immense significance ; we have been advised that Mr Parris is instructing a team of competent lawyers who are well capable of exploiting this obvious oversight . Maybe the Judicial Manager Toppin in his zeal to get back at Parris , with whom we are told he had a very bitter relationship , did not instruct his legal advisers properly , because they could not possibly have slipped up on such a basic point to the extent that would have allowed them to sanction his participation as a judicial manager . However, it does appear now that the work of the Management team will come up against a major legal hurdle . The public is advised to keep a close watch for further developments .
151 responses to “The CLICO Saga About To Take A New Twist”
BIPA , your beak has been broken! So much for the erudite and legal luminaries engaged to fight your case! Millions in JM fees and charges down the drain! One wonders if they will be asked to repay at least the profit element of it all?
BIPA, time to walk away from the carcass. Only the drying-out bones remain. I warned you and you failed to listen to someone in the know. You wanted everything back. Now you will pay leave with nothing.
I smell something not so good in the air…..leh me go look for me oxygen tank hear????? Wow! Oversight??? Hmmm….hmmmmm….hmmmm. Like those who organized the Judicial Management Team did not investigate the backgrounds of those on same before same spent so much time looking into others backgrounds and finances? You mean like the public did not know either who was on the JMT before it began its investigations? Like also Parris did not know that this particular gentleman was on the committee all dis’ time???? And last but not least the members themselves did not know that the person in question used to work with CLICO and had problems with Mista Parris??? Sorry…but I in reading the above….feel something feel very much wrong here……Interesting too! Enlighten this dumb blonde please David….were the names and backgrounds of the JMT kept a secret to all persons, even to each other????? Did they form themselves, keeping themselves a secret too???? Reasons to wonder I say. But then I do not know much….just reading the above…and asking meself some questions really.
The JDMs were appointed by the courts.
@David
Who would have approved the JDMs? Would government have had any role in signing off on them?
I have to agree with Rosemary. Barbados too small for this “oversight” to have not been known.
An Oversight Committee, Judicial Management, clear infelicities, people still struggling, and it might all be for nought? Wow.
Barbadians are a passive bunch every camel has its straw.
What can I say but wow! Savid….were they not subjected to questioning as to their backgrounds and suitability before appointed? And once appointed were their names made public?
uh mean, cuddear. as far back as April Jordan and Toppin were PUBLICLY and CLEARLY touted as the PRINCIPALS in the Judicial Management process…
There’s a saying about spitting in people’s faces. nuff said.
http://clicoinfo.com/ is only one example of this VERY PUBLIC information.
I say let Parris challenge the suitability of Toppin. Facts are facts are facts!!
The speed with which Parris and Co went to court gives the impression there is an anticipation and strategy being played out.
@David
Challenges will lengthen the process and be to the absolute detriment of the government. Better to have resolution than speculation. Enough is out there already.
Parris and Thornhill are well within their right however. Kudos to them.
@ David
Yup, so let him challenge I can see the ‘dislikemometre’ for him and his associates rapidly increasing. Talk about being worse than a leper.
What a heap of horse manure. Like Rosemary, this smack of conspiracy and corruption in the highest of places.
People all this does is show the level of corruption involved here…..The ELECTORATE shall one day speak…..un-fairing the aged and the incapacitated for the advancing of a few rich and pompous assholes, and doing so blatantly with no remorse, speak volumes.Just remember day does run til night catch it.
The dead king thought he would have lived longer to enjoy the sweets of his exploits, didn’t he ?
Just show there is a God above…Shameful
It appears the Clico executives are scared to let the truth out. however, the people of barbados, especially the voters, now know the mess that surrounds Clico and person/s linked to the DLP, therefore it will sting the party in its backside come next general elections. This is injustice at its highest level, now I am going to see how our DLP appointed C.J handle this one.
Something fishy here.
@ old onion bags | February 23, 2012 at 7:16 PM |
“What a heap of horse manure. Like Rosemary, this smack of conspiracy and corruption in the highest of places.”
At least you know your onions.
Big game of chess or checkers being played out. The dead King is the fall guy. A dead man can’t defend himself so he would be used as the Sin Bin and final dumping ground and resting place.
“the evil that men do lives after them”.
The previous relationships both business, and personal between Greenverbs and the JM’s were well known to those in the political circles who were in positions to make recommendations regarding the appointments:
Greenverbs = (OJ friend and party colleague)-(PT -grudge holder for ex-boss)+(FS longing to bury the monkey on his back called DT’s Saintly Image)+(CS -Greenverb’s ass licker with gargantuan liking for fancy free food and with fancy drinks addiction).
The only outcome is a stinking dead rat tarnishing the “divine” legacy of the false King David with easily fooled BIPA as the pawns just like the “Fowler” & Pinky play with the Red(woto)man in the Ax saga.
Oh how so called educated women are so easily taken in with sweet words and softly said promises from men in positions of power!
@david
Given the public nature and prior knowledge of toppin’s involvement, wouldn’t it be “arguable” that Parris et. al. had more than sufficient time to record their “grievance” and hence at this stage, proof of bias or previous opposition to Toppin should be the prerequisite for “shelving” the report??
I am with enuff on this; facts are facts are facts. It should really not matter who brought verifiable facts to light. But then the law is an ass.
This development sounds like the fullfillment of a very good insightful strategic plan. e.g. why wasn’t Toppin challenged before? Why now? Is it a case of letting the fool go further and further and then bringing him down at the most appropriate predetermined time?
What makes it very interesting is how the CJ and the courts are going to come down in this matter of the injunction especially since rendering the JM report null and void does not necessarily help the DLP in the long run. In fact the stink that would emanate from such a decision would probably have the opposite effect. Such a decision could have very far reaching effects.
The other area which has to be considered is what is the real function of the judicial managers. Is the Judicial management report the final and ultimate one or is their job to ferret out and sift the evidence and bring facts to another authority above them? Mightn’t it be more advantageous to have someone on the JM team who knows details on how the company is run and the corporate philosophy and mores and who could save time for the team by sensing pitfalls in the way?
Is this a red herring handed to David on a platter?
If this- that is, Mr. Toppin being part of the Judicial Management team and a dismissed ex-employee of Clico who went to Court against them- is true, then the Judicial Managers should be required to pay back the fees they have charged for their work in this matter and possibly fined if the High Court rules that there was a clear conflict of interest and Mr. Toppin should have recused himself. One doesn’t have to have a law degree to see how inappropriate it would have been for Mr. Toppin to do any work on this matter, and if it has happened I have to agree with @Rosemary Parkinson that there is something very rotten in the State of Denmark going on.
I hope the people who lost money will focus on getting as much back as possible and not be distracted by these tactical moves.
I wonder if there was a sinister plot to ensure that this debacle takes the usual 10 years to get a partial resolution thus allowing the Clico millionaires to live large.
There are innocent people who have been ripped off.
This must be a joke.
Here is what happened in Trinidad when Sir Gavin Lightman was appointed as Commissioner into the enquiry on CLICO and had to bow out less than 2 years ago.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Lightman_bows_out-106739488.html
the comments show a remarkable degree of faulty reasoning . The fundamental question must be : whose responsibility was it to inform about Toppin’s unsuitability? Toppin cannot be a ” fly by night ” accountant and he must know certain basic rules governing the profession. Was it therefore not Toppin’s duty to inform the authorities BEFORE HE STARTED TO WORK that he was a former employee of CLICO and that he had come into conflict with the company? It is highly unlikely that this information was widely known .If this information was known , then one must ask who were the lawyers advising the management commitee? The blame CANNOT BE PLACED ON PARRIS or ANYONE AT CLICO.
The comments by enuff that ” facts are facts ” is a silly comment unworthy of further consideration. I am well aware that ALL QUALIFIED ACCOUNTANTS are given a basic education in the legal principles that are likely to crop up in their everyday work routine. Every Accountant must know of the requirement in exercises like the CLICO management exercise that THERE HAS TO BE FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE UP FRONT by ALL PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE EXERCISE of ANYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY INFLUENCE THEIR ABILITY TO ACT IMPARTIALLY. An Acccountant of Toppin’s standing MUST BE AWARE OF THIS FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT. So ladies and gentleman, the blame has to be apportioned where it truly belongs ..AT THE DOOR OF THE MANAGERS WHO FAILED or REFUSED TO MAKE THE DISCLOSURE.
This is truly an open and shut case of professional negligence . And professional negligence IS ACTIONABLE….
David | September 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM |
Perhaps a better question is to ask if Patrick Toppin, before his partnership with Deloitte’s – did work for any of the companies under the CLICO Holdings umbrella.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is another good one too!!
Check-it said ; “Is this a red herring handed to David on a platter?”
There is a reason this was thrown at us tonight…..more than the mortar
Yes think long and hard on this here……
As I understand it, Mr Toppin was the manager in that he was overseeing the discovery of facts. He was not, I believe the one who discovered the false invoicing etc, as we all know it would have been a junior auditor who did the leg work. Let mr highwayman Parris sue it would be exciting to watch!! Further people are we even suggesting that Mr Toppin should have recused himself when the facts came to light because of ‘history’ ?nonsense! The facts speak volumes. Tell Mr Parris and Terrence D people want back every cent! There is a term for these actions it is called Highway Robbery
@ an Observer…not Observer ( a newy ?)
I am well aware that ALL QUALIFIED ACCOUNTANTS are given a basic education in the legal principles that are likely to crop up in their everyday work routine. Every Accountant must know of the requirement in exercises like the CLICO management exercise” V.GOOD POINT
In addition the accounting body that gave him his designation canwill also rescind his qualification in the event of Fraud and barr him from the association. Mr.Toppin KNOWS this…..therefore is now under the spot light.
In his studies on the qualifying body’s code of ethics, he would have been STRONGLY ADVISED of this……he would be playing with hot fire (or money) to risk his career.
@observing
Your pseudonym is much too close to mine for me to allow you to wallow in ignorance ; the courts do NOT require that there be PROOF of bias, THE APPEARANCE OF BIAS is sufficient..” justice must not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly BE SEEN to be done “. The test is therefore based on APPEARANCE rather than on any proof of ACTUAL bias.
If the facts in the posting can stand up to scrutiny , then the management team really do have a problem
Hey everybody…just STOP.>>>>.what’s wid all these NEW NAMES in here tonight?? , and feeding of Information>>>>Ms.Sweetie ???
Is a Commission of Enquiry the same thing as Judicial Management? Was the current JM report or forensic audit on the alleged infelicities in the disposition of CIL and CHBL assets functionally similar to a Commission of enquiry and subject to imputations of conflict of interest by a judicial manager? Wasn’t this report done by the Canadian Branch of Deloitte which was itself highly insulated from the local branch and therefore not subject to the conflict of interest parry? Wasn’t that insulation something that was necessary to circumvent any claims of conflict of interest if the JM report had gone the other way?
Could this matter (the injunction) have been planned long ago in a way that could quickly stymie any adverse report coming out of the JMs?
Something smells and the only thing that seems sure at present is that the Concerned policyholders are not now likely to get the full value of their investments out of what is left of CLICO assets after the various lawyers and accountants get their pieces of the putrid flesh left by the CLICO execs and their various friends in high places.
@Observer
Thanks, that’s why I ask questions and observe 🙂 I’ll rephrase my question then, in the absence of the appearance of bias, where does that leave us?
@Check it out.
Deloitte is Deloitte is Deloitte . The fact that it was done by another branch DOES NOT REMOVE THE LOCAL OFFICERS FROM THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH IT. If you have any friends in the legal profession ask one of them to put you on to the Pinochet Case in the House of Lords. You should then have a better view of how association with a ” branch ” is looked at by the courts. If you have a difficulty I can check with my own friend in the legal profession tomorrow and get a citation of that case for you.
I believe that all this activity, with the police bringing charges is just a ruse to pacify gullible Barbadians who are clutching at straws. The authorities know that the police case will not get off the ground because the Supervisor of Insurance acted improperly when he issued the order to CLICO to stop selling the particular financial instrument which is the subject matter of the charges against Parris and Thornhill. This point has already been decided by the Court of Appeal in the case Narsham Insurance (Barbados) Limited v the Supervisor of Insurance and the Attorney General.
In that case, the Supervisor of Insurance issued instructions to Narsham to stop writing new business. Narsham went to court and lost at first instance, but the case was overturned on appeal. The Court of Appeal said:
“In our opinion Narsham should have been given an opportunity to respond to the conclusions (findings) resulting from the investigation before the Supervisor issued the directions that he did issue. This is not to say that we are making any judgment on the merits. But as a matter of procedural fairness it should had been given that opportunity”.
The only difference with the present case is that Narsham would have been closed because they only did one type of business.
@ Checkit-Out | February 23, 2012 at 8:12 PM |
“The other area which has to be considered is what is the real function of the judicial managers. Is the Judicial management report the final and ultimate one or is their job to ferret out and sift the evidence and bring facts to another authority above them?”
Well said! The question to you is this: Would the political executive (Cabinet) request or support the relevant investigative bodies- the FSC and Police- to conduct investigations, collect evidence and prosecute where wrongdoing is established.
While the lawyers are having it out in the Courts and getting rich at the expense of the poor policyholders and taxpayers would justice be served and the wrongdoers punished under the law? Only the FSC and the Police can institute criminal charges against the CLICO executives not the Judicial Managers.
The plot here is to tie up the matter in legal cotton wool while the real issue is hidden in the closet by the political executive and regulatory and law enforcement agencies with the usual passing and losing of files and any public inquiry or outcry receiving the usual “we are in the process of working on it and it is receiving active consideration”.
@ An Observer
Did I seek to negate Parris’ right to file an injunction based on the fact that a conflict of interest may exists? No!!
This is not just a legal matter, there are social, political and economic dimensions that make my “silly comment” rather apt. In short, applying for and getting an injunction against the release of the JM Report will not make ‘$3.3m ChequeGate’ disappear or temper public outrage. In fact such action can only serve to amplify the public’s negative perception of the plaintiffs and their cohorts including the late PM and by extension the DLP. What is there to hide?
According to Rosemary Parkinson | February 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM |
“I smell something not so good in the air….”
Something stinks to high heavens. How come the JM’s have identified so much of major financial infelicities, poor and unprofessional accounting and financial management practices allegedly bordering on fraud and money laundering, missing or unaccountable assets and still have the Chief Financial Officer as President on the job and receiving money and perks out of the policy holders while the company is under judicial management?
According to BAF: Sumting wong, wong, wong hey!
Both HR protocol, “judicious” management of the inquiry process and respect for the policy holders,even at this stage, would require that T T be severed or removed from the business operations and requested to give evidence under a Court order.
What really is going on?
@ millertheanunnaki re. your post of Feb 23, 2012 at 9:12 PM;
Shouldn’t there also be a conflict of interest challenge to the FSC where at least one current member is reportedly a former member of CLICO’s senior executive staff and other member(s) were former CLICO board members?
Re. the Cabinet supporting letting the chips fall where they will. It seems that they have already done so in that they have allowed the partial release of the JM report that is now being hotly discussed.
Caswell has said it all and is correct. They are leading the people down to a dry hole.What a shame, what a shame.Freundel…these people are under your watch and care…..what a nasty game that will be played out on these poor people…where is the justice ?
Yet another ploy….results will not come about til after elections..nasty oh so nasty…more people will have died by them…oh what a shame David.
…by the way, anyone knows what happened to the $10M that the late PM “gave” to CLICO?…..I almost forgot the $19M write off for the Turf Club….WOW!!!! It “pays” to be RICH!
@caswell
Did narsham continue selling after the order?
@observer
Is the issue the acrimonious relationship with CLICO or simply the fact that he used to work there??
Thought for all. If Toppin were found to be “too close” to judge or act on CLICO, what would we say to having a former sitting PM who was CLICO’s primary lawyer….making national policy and financial decisions, governmental pronouncements, and personal defences in the name of said Parris and company throughout the collapse, during the payouts, scandals, and oversight committee’s “challenges.” Finding Toppin “partial and bias” immediately and “officially” (not sure if legally) renders all decisions made by DT and to some degree the government subject to debate. All that’s left now is to see how much CLICO contributed to last election. The dog would indeed be dead.
@ Checkit-Out | February 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM |
Only goes to show how imbedded this corrupting CLICO cancer is. Nothing will come of it from the Executive arm of things. CLICO money and influence along with the “black elite’ social network would ensure their pals don’t face justice and risk exposing the few beneficiaries of this ponzi scheme.
A partial release of the report at the unofficial behest of the top dogs in the puppy cabinet is similar to appeasing the masses by throwing a few Christians to the lions in Roman times or scraps of meat to a hungry dog, just to settle it.
What would bring this thing to a head in Bim is if the other “victims” in the Eastern Caribbean territories, along with their political representatives, start putting pressure on the Barbados government. A case of contributory negligence and lax regulatory responsibility can have some merit even if aired at the international level.
We have to be wary not to allow emotion to cloud judgement.
Bear in mind this matter is bound in the court, there are heavy legal implications especially as it relates to the CLICO executives.
.
Observing
Narsham did not continue selling. Instead, they went to court and we now know that the Supervisor could not have made the order without giving Narsham an opportunity to be heard. Similarly, the Supervisor did not give CLICO an opportunity to be heard before the order was made. It is not what the Supervisor of insurance did: it is how he did it that will cause Parris to escape the short arm of the law.
June Fowler ….I hope you are listening.Another sham is about to be perpetrated against you good people…What are you all going to do ?How will they take the news ? Stay tuned…I hope no one goes berserk and seek his or her own mode of justice
The above was extracted …
One must assume that Toppin’s Accounting Firm was contracted by CLICO at some point.
Does it make a difference that the relationship would have been regulated by the rules of accounting procedures?
WILL everyone now heraken unto the voice and know that corruption in high places is nearing its end and all those willfully corrupted individuals will suffer the consequences of their nefarious actions ???????
DONT you realized people that shift is coming or that it is already here ???
DONT you know that the wickedness of the world is now being exposed ???
DONT you know that the DLP won the last election through gimmicks , lies and CORRUPTION —yes CORRUPTION ???
DONT you know that it is the END of the DLP as a Party—???
YOU dont know that it done—Finished for the DEMS ???
JUST ASKING along with
JUST OBSERVING and
JUST SNOOZING
@david
Understood. But, the true weight and impact of this matter lies outside the court and in many homes. Another sad day in Barbadian history, regardless of outcome.
Thanks Caswell. Clear now.
I think we should prepare for the political fire sale. I smell many marginal seats creeping over to the other side.
God bless Bim.
@Observing
Agree that public sentiment is located outside the courts but should this matter to the CLICO Executives involved?
Millions of dollars and personal reputations are at stake.
@Caswell Franklyn | February 23, 2012 at 10:36 PM |
, “…. the Supervisor did not give CLICO an opportunity to be heard before the order was made. It is not what the Supervisor of insurance did: it is how he did it that will cause “XXX” to escape the short arm of the law.”
Trying to nail “XXX” aka Greenverbs (Sorry about the Parisian replacement) on this charge is just a smoke screen to get him off the hook as advised by his pals in high places. If those elected and appointed with the holy mandate of meting out justice are really serious and want to name and shame Le Roi and not bamboozle the policyholders they would try to use the Anti Money Laundering legislation or the Income Tax Act to bring charges of impropriety against the accused.
The questions to be asked in this respect are: Were the payments made from the CLICO business bank accounts to DT Associates for the benefit of DT Associates or a third party? Were the source(s) of these proceeds declared as required under the Anti-Money laundering regulations?
Were these receipts declared as revenue or income in the tax returns of DT Associates or any other party?
Following these leads would shed much light on other transactions possibly involving campaign contributions and other payments to individuals for “services” rendered.
@millertheanunnaki
All of your questions have to be ruled against in a court of law. This is the point An Observer seems to be making.
@Observer
Your comments @9.24 pm……. simply put Outstanding
David
Who is this interloper who dares use the nom de plume SARGE? Could you ask him/her to cease and desist?
@Sargeant
Hopefully by your protestation of violation of patent said interloper would cease and desist 🙂