D&T need to tell the concerned public when were Court-approved copies of the Report given to these regulatory agencies and specifically which date was the Barbados FSC’s copy delivered. Was it by hand and was it signed for? Was it sent electronically and to whom? If the appropriate procedures were followed as expected with highly confidential documents we would wish to hear from the CEO or his political boss the MoF.
One would hate to think we are dealing with another eager Chrisgate scandal. According to sinckler unclear arithmetic “eleven minus one equals one (11-1=1) left to be fingered.

@David

what do u want the govt to do, make statements for politcal expedeiency?

@miller

It is unlikely the judicial managers would make such info public except to the Court.

My concern as a Clico policy holder is June Fowler who obviously is taking a six for a nine and attacking the Government of Barbados without reason she no longer represents my interest she is now a politican.

@David
4th estate ain’t pursuing jack unless it brings more readership.

This press release clearly shows that battle lines have been drawn. Time for the soldiers to line up.

@Observing

Why not ask questions about whether the financials of CLICO had notes in previous years?

Why not examine the fiduciary responsibility of former CLICO directors?

So many issues to explore the range of causal factors which contributed to the demise of CLICO.

Instead it remains fixated on the political dimension.

Agreed observing, what about what have the regulators across the Caribbean done to tighten oversight post-CLICO?

The press release says:
“The Judicial Manager therefore wishes to clarify the following:
By Order of the Court dated February 20, 2012 the Judicial Manager was granted leave of the Court
to do as follows:
Leave is granted to the Judicial Manager to share the Report with the Regulatory Agencies in the
territories where the Respondent operates.”
In keeping with the directions of the Court, the Judicial Manager delivered a copy of the Report to
the respective governmental office or agency that operates as Insurance Regulator in each of the
territories where CIL operates (Anguilla, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St.
Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent).”

What need to be answered is when was this released to the various regulators?
How did the press get their hands on the report. ( I am hearing the local FSC got theirs last Wednesday).

I like the PM would find it difficult to speak to a report where out of 39 pages a few paragraphs are being quoted in the press. Based on past experiences, paragraphs were quoted and when one views the full text a totally different message was conveyed to me. Snippets can be misleading. The press needs to publish the entire document and let the populace form their own opinions. So far we are seeing of this report what they think we should see. I need to see more in order to have a better understanding of what is contained therein. That is the only logical route for this issue to take from here on in.

DEM know how to confuse tings.. but only time will tell….um soon come..then we shall see who gets the last LAUGH.

@ David.
Thank you for keeping alive the very fundamental question which i raised ; I am also pleased to hear that it was raised today ( maybe you will care to elaborate ) . For the avoidance of doubt let me restate my unambiguous position : DELOITTE THE JUDICIAL MANAGERS CANNOT APPOINT DELOITTE THE AUDITORS TO AUDIT DELOITTE. THIS A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Deloitte must explain how this could possibly have taken place . I cannot imagine that a company of this standing in the corporate field could have committed such a howler .
I need not continue further discussion about the report . However I find it extraordinarily amazing that the judicial managers could only say that the court made the order for them to release the report on 20 February ; they must go on to say that acting on that order we delivered a copy of the report on the BLANK date of BLANK to the BLANK GOVERNMENT AGENCY etc. Nothing less can be accepted from a company entrusted with the responsibility with which Deloitte has been entrusted . I believe I have said enough . Peace my brother .

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/dAKocWwFPTI?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0

The so-called judicial managers have misinterpreted their public interest remit if they feel that the report they have submitted to the courts is somehow a private document.
It is fundamentally a review of, of should be, the failure re of regulation and supervision and, to my mind, of the attorney general to take criminal action on what appeared even before the ‘judicial managers’ were appointed, a prima facie act of criminal behaviour or of gross incompetence.
In any case, as with the Mutual, the issues are revolving around politics, back-covering and the appointment of professional accountants and auditors who to my mind are not professionally equipped to carry out a review of the failure of an insurance company.
The people who run insurance companies are actuaries and to properly review their actions there must be someone with the professional knowledge to look at their investment decisions, the actuarial assumptions underlying those decisions, the investment vehicles and the risk assumptions and management on which those decisions were based.
From what we know about insurance theory and investment principles, Clico was a basket case waiting to happen.
Insurance companies have different business models to banks; while banks borrow short and lend long, this the banking crisis, insurance companies have long-dated liabilities.
It is this legacy that accountants an auditors are not professionally equipped to analyse.
We have also legalised the issue, when it is a regulatory one. We are afraid to discuss regulation because there is no obvious local expertise. On the contrary, we understand the legal system and feel comfortable if lawyers are expounding over key public policy issues.
To return to the fundamental issue, once the report was handed over by the judicial managers, it should have been published.
But this is not the first time that this has happened in Barbados. I know someone who sat on an official committee and did not receive a copy of the full report.
Barbados is the secret society. Those who are well connected get to know of everything; those of us outside that loop, are kept in the dark.
Such a society should bring out the best in investigative journalism.
Hal Austin

@ Hal Austin.
Above everything that you have said , you have in your zeal rushed to error. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT INSTITUTE CRIMINAL ACTION IN BARBADOS ; THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE DPP . Peace .

@ David
You have missed the point about Deloitte ; it is not an issue of their competence or ability to do the forensic audit . That is not to be questioned .
Rather it is a question of the conflicting duties of care . The managers owe a duty to the company and its shareholders while the auditors owe no such duty . The auditors act as scrutineers . If therefore the two functions are being performed BY THE SAME COMPANY , we have a problem . IT IS CALLED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
The argument here expressed is similar to that in respect of the appointment of the Judicial managers . I shall restate it : if indeed it is a fact that Mr Toppin of Deloitte was a former employee of CLICO whose employment was discontinued under unhappy circumstances , then NEITHER MR TOPPIN NOR HIS COMPANY DELOITTE SHOULD BE APPOINTED JUDICIAL MANAGERS . If , as has happened , his association with CLICO was overlooked FOR WHATEVER REASON , MR TOPPIN / DELOITTE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF/ ITSELF FROM SITTING AS JUDICIAL MANAGERS OVER ANYTHING TO DO WITH CLICO . This point is too fundamental for those concerned to have slipped up on it . IT IS SURE TO BE RAISED IN WHITE PARK ROAD . In the meantime , peace my brother.

@An Observer

That earlier response was directed to Hal. made the observation that the wrong skill sets on board.

millertheanunnaki | March 21, 2012 at 11:46 PM |

Miller……the true blogger extraordinaire …the intelligence and flair of this manwoman’s writings boggles the mind . Again we ask.. are you Billy Miller or Luther or Tony or Sam ? Keep up the good work ..it keeps BU most interesting and read by newspaper editors for scoops.

An Observer.. | March 22, 2012 at 7:11 AM |
“This point is too fundamental for those concerned to have slipped up on it . IT IS SURE TO BE RAISED IN WHITE PARK ROAD ..”

Your keen sense of ‘observation’ again reinforces the view that the legal competence in this 2×3 place no bigger than a dock leaves too much to be desired. The appalling lack of professional substance, knowledge and understanding and capacity to execute the law is grossly embarrassing. Of the 700 odd legal practitioners it’s a crying shame that such a glaring case of an obvious and observed “Conflict of Interest” was so easily overlooked. Except for an iota of legal brains (including you “Observer”, of course, despite being slightly tarnished by your political stripe) this incestuous fraternity is a sad reflection of the kind of returns on the country’s investment in free tertiary education.

Where was your voice and eyes, “Observer’ when this travesty was being played out?
Even an atheist like BAFBFP would be keen to believe in the warning issued by the chief teacher in the Christian book of human morality: 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.”

Prodigal Son | March 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM |
“…… Is this what you all are hoping that the whole thing gets thrown out? ”

And that is exactly where it is heading! Right through the legal backdoor to the dump heap of obfuscation, delay, adjournments and appeal after appeal, missing files until the father of forgetfulness called Time wipes the memories of the living dead.
Do you now understand the reason for the sudden mood of silence and plea of ignorance by the generals and the start of blame game by their political lieutenants?

@ My friend the Miller.
Pray tell me what is that ” political Stripe ” which tarnishes me !! LOL . Peace my brother .

To David .
Please see if you can get the AN OBSERVER to understand simple logic . I am loathed to respond to him if only because he demonstrates his total lack of objectivity. Over to you David ! Please help me and the other members of the BU family. Peace my brother and good luck .

And another question of note, was it not the same Oliver Jordan who was pictured complete in a RED SHIRT at the nomination of Rudy Grant just before the last elections ?

Was this not the same Oliver Jordan that was removed from the BTA after Price Waterhouse did and audit and found a lot of money had dissappeared from BTA accounts and was it not the same Oliver Jordan and one other that were fired from the BTA for the theft of this same money ?

And tell me could he really be someone that could tell a dog not to cock up its leg and pee on your car tyre ?

Was the other joker Toppin not employed by Clico and fired by Clico and the had a legal battle with Clico ?

Could he seriously believe that he is fit to serve in judgment of Clico ?

The bottom line is that there enough information about CLICO in the public domain to raise legitimate questions.

In all like hood we will have litigation.

The battle lines have been drawn as observing mentioned last night.

Here we have a case where the crooks have been given total control of the bank have suckered punch the government and the taxpayers have hogtied the policyholders and the supposedly independent entity BIPA is sleeping with the enemy and DT as the Pinata and when it is all over the crooks would have gotten away and the taxpayers would be the ones to foot the bill. not even hollywood could write a script so grand

@ ac
Are you on CLICO’s payroll? Good krisssssssssssssst man!!

@enuff

About the 3.3 million payment they can be not doubt. It must be explained.