The Everton Cumberbatch Versus Leroy Parris, Larry Tatem And Breakers Investment Inc Matter

Sir Richard Cheltenham (l)            Leroy Parris (c)             Larry Tatem (c)

On March 16, 2012, BU posted the Leroy Parris The Litigant blog. BU has now had sight of the Plaintiff (Everton Cumberbatch’s) Affidavit in support of his action. While not in any way taking a position on the affidavit, BU found it to be a fascinating read and highly recommend it to the BU family.

BU also post the Judgement of the High Court in a motion by the Defendants (Leroy Parris, Larry Tatem, The Breakers Investment Inc) to have the matter discontinued and struck out, in which the Defendants failed.

The action refers to, in the main, the Companies Act Cap. 308 of the Laws of Barbados, Section 228. This section specifically deals with Oppression of the rights of members and officers and charge-holders of a company. We quote one small portion of Section 228:

228. (1) A complainant may apply to the court for an order under this section.

228(2)(c) the powers of the directors of the company or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner, that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregards the interests of, any shareholder or debenture holder, creditor, director or officer of the company, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of. [BU emphases]

BU wishes to stress that:

  • The allegations contained in Mr Cumberbatch’s affidavit are not at this stage proven.
  • The substantive matter of the action is sub judice.
  • BU has not obtained access to the defense (if any) of the Defendants. Out of fairness, we invite those who may have access to the position of the Defendants to scan and send them to BU and BU undertakes the anonymity of the sender(s).

Out of fairness, BU wants to throw some light on the process gone through when appeals for planning permissions from the TCP are made to the Office of the Prime Minister. The PM himself does not hear such appeals. They are placed before a panel of experts which, in its turn, advises the PM on whether the appeal should be upheld or not. The PM then acts on and adopts the advice he receives. These appeals usually involve retaining experts who, in their turn, prepare the appeal and present it in the best possible light, having regard to the prevailing conditions, guidelines and legislation. The panel has the right to recommend amendments to the application, indicating terms upon which they would be prepared to recommend the application for approval by the PM.

BU advises that the documents it has published are filed with the Court and are therefore in the public domain. However, if repeats that some of the allegations contained therein are unproven and to treat them as proven, until the Courts rule, may well constitute defamation. The BU Family, to date and with few exceptions, has shown laudable restraint in not rushing to judgement on matters pending before the Court, particularly when only one side has been aired.

It is our understanding that the Court will shortly rule on this issue.

41 thoughts on “The Everton Cumberbatch Versus Leroy Parris, Larry Tatem And Breakers Investment Inc Matter

  1. sorry unfamiliar with details but if a director or shareholder or being both do not comply with corporate bylaws (many possibilities), the remaining directors have every right to take whatever measures are allowed by bylaws. period

    • Now this is information that you will never read in the traditional media. Remember the court documents are a matter of public record.

  2. @David
    since when have we EVER seen ANY of the traditional media take the few minutes to dig up court documents on CRITICAL integrity, national and corruption issues?? I can’t recall EVER seeing a media house quote, reference or mention such. If it’s against journalistic practice i need to be filled in.

    Good read by the way. Lord knows how much of this has happened over the years by ppl wid money squeezing the balls of ppl that trying to make,

  3. David; Thanks for sight of the documents. Very Interesting!!!! In addition to the comments by Observing above, the documents also seem to suggest some very interesting relationships between the public and private sectors in these matters of high finance and some inter island linkages that I would not have guessed existed.

  4. @observing


    What it shows is that our media is not as curious as it should be which forces and interesting question, why?


    As usual you cut to the bone of the matter. The mix of personnel doing business here is very interesting. The personnel doing the financing and the source of the funds.

  5. Look Everton you have been screwed.
    You should have know this by item number 65 when you were told you could not attend the meeting.
    By item number 67 they were suggesting an equal division. What had they put in to deserve a 25% share?
    Item number 68: Why did you respect this defendant. What had he ever done to EARN your respect?
    By item number 74 they had reduced your share to 10% and yet you still went along with this foolishness?
    So Parris was confident that he could get David to withhold town planning permission? So yes now we see why David had to die early. God don’t like ugly.
    So by item number 81 they put you to sit in the lobby like a little boy.
    By item number 89 you finally grew a air of balls?
    I I was your mother boy, I would call you home and fleet your ‘rass in lashes.
    You abandoned common sense.
    This is the sort of thing which dampens the investment climate in Barbados and causes people to put their money in a bank or credit union and let it sit there.
    This is the sort of thing that caused me to invest in expensive educations for my children, instead of “investing” in these speculative schemes.
    This is why the DLP done lost the election, not that the BLP (evidently) are much better.
    These guys make Nigerian scamsters (with apologies to all my wonderful Nigerian friends) look like a bunch of Sunday school teachers.

  6. Bu is always calling for Integrity Legislation, I wish them well in their quest.

    On the platform they cuss each other, in private it is a completely different and opposite matter..

  7. What would help is if he traditional media get off their lazy asses and enlighten an ignorant public. Do you know many documents file in the Court Registry – which are available to the public and exposes a side of Barbados the information gatekeepers would prefer to keep secret – is available? Examine this matter and see the principals involved and we wonder why things are the way they are in Barbados.

    Yes the matter is sub judice but it does not stop the media reporting on. The traditional uses the cloak of sub judice to protect the ‘powerful’.

    To CCC’s BU is just a little blog, we need others to join the fight. For our children’s sake.

  8. @David

    See how easy it is for those wearing the red and the blue to come together? These “Financiers” don’t see Party colours, I’ll repeat an earlier observation they are only interested the colour of money.

  9. I am in possession of various reports which are in the public domain.
    If the News fraternity in Barbados had published any extracts from these documents, the Barbados Labour Party could not have been in office for fourteen years.

    But all the news organizations in Barbados allowed themselves to be governed down by Barbados Labour Party operatives.

    As a result, as they say in Barbados, the Barbados Labour Party “do de dog”.

  10. Why do we always have to focus on people?

    The bigger issue here is to show as Sargeant and checkit-out identified above how the establishment in Barbados operates.

  11. @Carson
    “As a result, as they say in Barbados, the Barbados Labour Party “do de dog”.”

    Then we can respectfully agree that the Democratic Labour Party so far has done the very large overweight puppy. Given the trend, in 4 more years it would be an overgrown salmon tot retriever on steroids unless it gets the right injection.

    Just observing.

  12. Interesting information, David. But, as is said, unproven and only one side. Nonetheless, the motion to strike out was, in my view, gratuitous and the learned judge came to the only decision she could. It is, frankly, an excellent and tightly written decision with, in my view, no grounds for appeal. It is a pity that you do not have access to the defendants’ statements of defense.

    There is a general misconception regarding planning permissions that I am glad you have cleared up. PM’s, in my experience, usually keep a distance between appeals on planning permissions and themselves. They appoint what, for want of a better expression, is a commission of enquiry which, in its turn, takes expert advice from both sides and then writes an opinion for the PM. It is then down to the PM to adopt the recommendations in that opinion and, so far as my experience goes, this is usually what the PM does. It is not an arbitrary process as some try to make out. Having said that, however, these reports to the PM are largely dependent on the composition of the panel that hears the appeal. I am not suggesting wrong-doing by these learned experts, although some of the decisions in my view, defy logic. What I am suggesting is that there is no wrong-doing on the part of the PMs who adopt those recommendations. At least not in my experience and I can only speak from that.

    I was amused by the allegations at paragraph 78 of the affidavit. Far too many times once Thompson had taken office, I was told by applicants that Thompson was their friend and would facilitate their applications on lands that I personally knew were unlikely to get permissions. And to my certain knowledge not a single one of those applications was approved, Thompson preferring to do as he was advised by the panel. Some of those applicants were very high-powered, but that did not assist them.

    The location of the lands in question also raises questions for me. The fly zone and the proximity to the airport gives me pause. Not that these would necessarily rule them out for development of some sort, it is just what sort of development that begs the question. My guess is that some sort of development is possible.

    I do not agree that Mr Cumberbatch acted foolishly. On the contrary. I wish him well in his litigation and obtaining planning permissions of whatever sort. With 32 acres (I think it was 32) he ought to be able to make a profit. Good for him.

  13. Amused; Your input above suggests that the PM always goes by the advice of the review panel. Is this necessarily so? Is he constrained to accept such advice?

    When does the review panel kick in? Isn’t it often to review a challenge to an application which failed to be approved? Wouldn’t that mean that the PM, the Minister responsible for these matters, would have been on the side of the rejection of the application in the first case? since he would have agreed that it should have been rejected. In such a case it would seem odd that he would reject the recommendation of the review panel.

    Isn’t there also a situation where a number of change of use applications are NOT challenged even though the final decision went against the recommendations to the PM from the agencies that vetted the application? and indeed, why should there be a challenge unless the Officials are very atypical mavericks and would want to challenge the PM’s ruling? or does it make sense for an applicant to challenge a decision which went in their favour?

    Got to run. Will hopefully complete this tonight.

  14. Amused or Blogger2012;
    Please correct me where I’m wrong below.
    My understanding of the process for approving or disallowing an application for development of a project involving change of use of land is as follows:-
    The developer submits a proposal for the project to the Ministry of Planning or the T&CP dept.
    The application is filed and sent to a number of Departments, eg MOA, BWA, MTW, MinHousing, AG dept, etc. for comments and recommendations on if it should be approved.
    The departments individually make recommendations on whether or not the application should be approved based on the considerations of their individual department.
    The T&CP department summarizes the comments/recommendations and makes a recommendation to the Minister responsible for planning, usually the PM as to whether the application should be rejected or approved and the conditions for such rejection or approval.

  15. Something seems to be going very wrong with my post above. I didn’t click “post comment” yet it just posted in the middle of my typing. That is a first for me. Perhaps I should leave off posting on this topic for now.

    Might try tonight to show where Amused’s post

  16. “BU has now had site of the Plaintiff”. That’s in the SECOND sentence. You’ve had site? Really?

    Well then, we’ll definitely take you seriously.

    We’d even take you seriously if you’d had sight.

  17. David
    Someone is using the handle Mash Up and Buy Back ,and those are not the comments from me – the original commenter with that handle.

    Why do people do that foolishness.It is so simple to give themselves a name – any name,rather than confuse and mislead the readers.
    Delete that name at 7:02 p.m. please.


  18. It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the words:

    “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

    The words were written as Jefferson weighed in on the virtues and objectives of businessmen. Business has always prioritized profits while patriotism, love of country and the common good rank lower in concern. In his words, Jefferson hit at the root cause of our current economic problems.

  19. Amused “PM’s, in my experience, usually keep a distance between appeals on planning permissions and themselves.”

    “Usually” is the operative word especially with regards to Oseemoreafter.
    I don’t forgive and I don’t forget.
    Maybe he the CTP and the Lawyers were just going for a drive in the country and happened to stop and see if a Cow could graze.

  20. In fairness to David Thompson, it was a speculation by Cheltenham and Tatem that development approval would not have been granted once Thompson became PM and Parris was out of the deal. This was before the change of Government and Cheltenham had rightly speculated that the BLP was going to lose the election.

    After becoming PM and after the suit had been filed Thompson as chairman of the Defence Board and with Town Planning having difficulty approving a 5 star resort development adjacent to a military base agreed with the offer to relocate the Paragon base to make way for the planned development and set out the conditions for agreement. That the relocation be financed by The Breakers and built to the specification of the army and government. That the relocation site should also be approved by both the military and government.

    Tatem nor Cheltenham never submitted any statement or affidavit in response to the lwa suit and did not appeal the judgement of the court. All of their efforts to subvert the plaintiff’s pursuit of justice have been played “off court”.

    In his letter to Parris confirming the offer of shares, Cheltenham on his professional letterhead claimed that he had authorisation so to act from the directors of the company, and this is untrue. There is so much more to this issues, but the court must be allowed to adjudicate without interferance. full story will be known in the fullness of time.

    Interestingly, the loan of CLICO’s funds, authorised by Parris to Cheltenham and Tatem was Parris’ last act of self service before CLICO went belly up.

    It is not fair to describe Everton as foolish as evidently the arrangements between Parris Cheltenham and Tatem he had no knowledge of, he obviously trusted Tatem.

    • It seems distasteful that Parris can have so much money to throw around from a USD account to boot. Yest CLICO is now reflecting an asset deficit.

  21. @For Justice | May 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM | I agree with what you have said, except I have not seen any letter from Cheltenham regarding the shares. However, from what you have said, if proven, Cheltenham’s actions were ultra vires and therefore it strengthens Cumberbatch’s case for oppression under section 228. Also, such a letter as you allege was written ought properly to have been written on the letterhead of the company.

    My concern lies in the scope for conflict of interest. I can see no objection to Thompson or Stuart representing any of the parties in this case, as long as they were not in government at the time. However, once in government, it is common practice for lawyers to declare any issues (like planning permissions) coming before them on which they may previously have worked – at least this is the case in other common law jurisdictions. The alternative is unthinkable and they must recuse themselves if a matter in which they previously had an interest comes before them in an executive capacity. First and foremost is solicitor-client privilege and from there it gets more and more complicated with likely bias etc. The solution, as practiced in other jurisdictions, is simple. They need only declare a conflict of interest and create a Chinese wall or firewall between them and the issue and pass the decision-making on any particular issue on to an unconflicted colleague. I don’t think it is appropriate for any PM, in the capacity as final appeal on planning permissions, to actually decide (whether with consultation and panel or not) on an application in which he/she has had an interest prior to taking office. I view that as a clear conflict of interest. Even if it is just to rubber-stamp the decisions of a panel of advisers. Therefore, to that extent, I agree completely with @ Hants | May 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM – actually, I tend towards agreement with Hants completely, but I would need the evidence to take me there, before I would be prepared to put my head on a block.

  22. @Amused “would need the evidence to take me there”

    Rightly so.

    But I know that you know that I must have had a stake where the cow wanted to graze.

  23. @Hants. Then you must declare the stake – and the cow. But seriously, your point is well made and it highlights, yet again, the desperate need for integrity legislation.

  24. So it looks like the apparent “threat”, that the likelihood of the application being approved by the substantive Minister responsible for Planning was contingent on who brought it, was common to both Administrations and depended on who was associated the application, not its merits or otherwise.

    It seems that the company was demonstrably certain of its disapproval if certain persons were associated as principals in the application since savvy movers and shakers seemed to be prepared to pump significant sums into the venture?

    So the Government was apparently seeking to relocate the Army facility to facilitate the developers??!!! Is this really so? If so it says a lot about the complicity of the highest levels of Government with the pushers of the project.

    Was such a proposal for relocation ever brought into the public domain and when did the proposal for relocation occur, ie. under which administration did it occur?

    This matter gets curiouser and curiouser and looks like a time bomb that could have the potential to make a PDC or a Commissiong or an offshoot party of non tainted members of both the traditional ruling parties look attractive as an alternative.

    Amused and Hants you should tell us some more.

  25. On the other hand, if the proposal for relocation of the Army facility from near the airport predated the matters presented in the affidavit it would suggest that Mr Cumberbatch was a proactive thinker who got in just before the vultures but they circled and damaged him nevertheless. Indeed a timeline would make a lot of sense in this case and would explain a lot of what transpired.

  26. What BU finds interesting as well is the degree to which the traditional media has been muzzled in a matter which merits fair comment.

  27. Checkit-Out | May 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM | You said: “So it looks like the apparent “threat”, that the likelihood of the application being approved by the substantive Minister responsible for Planning was contingent on who brought it, was common to both Administrations and depended on who was associated the application, not its merits or otherwise.”

    I merely explained the process as I understand it, but made no comments on whether or not this process was (or is) scrupulously observed.

    You also said: “So the Government was apparently seeking to relocate the Army facility to facilitate the developers??!!!”

    Such a decision would have been taken at least a decade before it was implemented and I would be surprised if the Government does not have studies and reports going back at least two decades as to why it was desirable to discontinue that particular facility. Studies that might well pre-date any development interest in that area. I am not saying that you are wrong, merely pointing out the other side of the picture. My speculation as to what happened is that Mr Cumberbatch identified an opportunity and the hawks, who had not identified it and recognised its potential, were unwittingly invited in by Mr Cumberbatch. Normally, they might well have won and it is to Mr Cumberbatch’s credit that he had the brains to see the opportunity and the courage to fight for his rights and take on the hawks head first. So, I do not and will never agree with the views that he was stupid – anything but.

    I see no time bomb, I must tell you.

  28. @Amused


    We need more Barbadians to stand up to these marauders. Often times the passive nature of the Bajans mean they are intimidated and run for the hills.

  29. Amused; I agree almost totally with your post above.

    The information in the public domain (ie on BU) is insufficient for a proper analysis. However, it does make one go “Hmmmmm!”. It would however be interesting to find out how long the move was being mooted and exactly when Hant’s cows discovered the pasture and what action was taken following this.

    Since Mr. Cumberbatch’s research, according to his affidavit, indicated that a prior application was rejected, it would also be interesting to find out when that application was made and adjudicated and why conditions would have changed so much as to make a new application or a request for a review eminently feasible and justifying the input of the hawks when they learned of the research and its money making potential.

    Interesting case, even if not hiding a political time bomb, but still having the potential for thoughtful people to question the state of the body politic.

    Thanks for the response.

  30. Were it not for BU this information would never have surfaced so it is to BU’s credit that possibly the biggest story of the year is being told. It wouldn’t suprise me if the newspapers and radio stations were asked not to carry the story. Early last year Everton Cumberbatch, if this is the same person was writing quite regularly in both news papers then suddenly his contributions dried up.

    My own investigation of the court documents shows a lot more than what has been reported so far. The company “The Breakers Investment Inc was formed on February 1st 2007 and according to Parris law suit No 341 of 2008 against Sir Richard Cheltenham QC and Larry Tatem on the very day of the company’s incorporation and evidently before directors could meet Cheltenham, Tatem and Parris met at Parris’ house and hatched the plan and by the following day Parris received a letter from Cheltenham confirming the offer of shares for US$500,000.

    On 3rd March after his lawyers Thompson and Associates had written letters to Cheltenham requesting a refund since he was never issued with any shares, Parris filed a suit No. 341 of 2008 by way of writ against the company, Cheltenham and Tatem. Obviously neither Cumberbatch nor the company had any knowledge of the deal between the three of them.

    The question is how then can either Cumberbatch or the company be held responsible for any refund to Parris? How could Parris spend money in Miami and turn up in Barbados for shares in a local company? Where could Parris have gotten US$500,000 and possibly more in a bank account outside of Barbados?

    The law suit by Parris in itself is proof of most of what is contained in the Affidavit submitted by Everton Cumberbatch. Shouldn’t Cheltenham be stripped of his knighthood and the title of Queen’s Counsel? and be be removed from the Governor General’s Privy Council?

    I agree with you Amused, it is time people like that threesome be taken on for injustice and wrong doing. No wonder the media wouldn’t touch the story.

    Everton is not only tanacious but visionary. A 5 star resort development on that site is an excellent idea. Lets hope he gets the development approval and support of this government.

  31. 32 acres of waterfront lands could mean that with development approval and designation as commercial property its value could be as much as $160Million. So Mr. Cumberbatch could be looking at a development at well over $1Billion and a market value of five time that amount. WOW!

    So this is clearly a case of greed.

  32. Amused or Legalese or other legal luminary;

    Is there a bit of a pattern in all this? Not suggesting anything untoward here but was there a change of use approved for lands at Graeme Hall for CLICO in the 2000’s? What were the circumstances? Which administration was in power and what was the date?

  33. I have it on good authority that both newspapers know of this story, but had been asked not to carry report on it. A source at the Nation indicated they are waiting for the decision on the joining of Sir Richard Cheltenham as the 4th defendant. There is more to come apparently.

  34. Pingback: 13 Years Later – Everton Cumberbatch Vs Larry Tatem, Leroy Parris and Johnny Cheltenham | Barbados Underground

Leave a comment, join the discussion.