CLICO Policyholders Recommended to take a Haircut!

Patrick Toppin (l) Oliver Jordan (r) CLICO Judicial Managers

BU regards the following as a matter of public interest (snagged from Facebook)

This outrageous proposal is the outcome of a totally secret Report filed with the Court by the Judicial Manager last Friday 19th October and mysteriously sanctioned within 7 days without any consultation or public announcement whatsoever. If ever there was evidence needed that this Government has continually made false promises and reassurances to an unsuspecting and trusting electorate, then this is it.

The result will be that policyholders will be lucky to see as much as 50 cents on the dollar. Any CLICO or BAICO policyholder, their family member, business owner or person hoping to keep their job or get a new one who votes for the DLP at the next election, deserves everything (or should that be next to nothing) they will get. This is an outrage, especially as BIPA has had meetings with the Opposition at which viable and satisfactory solutions to the debacle have been negotiated. Is this why the PM has so far been ‘too busy’ to accept BIPA’s invitation to meet with him. Next thing we will hear is that he knows nothing about this. Or maybe he feels that he does not need the 35,000 voters who are policyholders, not to mention all those others who will be devastated by this.

0 thoughts on “CLICO Policyholders Recommended to take a Haircut!


    • It will be interesting to observe how the government responds. It is the silly season and this CLICO beast has to be wrestled to the ground whether the government believes it is the BLP’s fault.


  1. It is still my contention that the Government and its agent, the Supervisor of Insurance, are guilty of at least gross negligence in the handling of CLICO prior to it s failure. The Supervisor knew ought to have known that CLICO was heading for trouble and should have taken steps to protect the unsuspecting public. The Supervisor had a statutory duty to intervene and if he had done so, policyholders would have been aware that CLICO was not a safe place to do business.

    Persons who did business with the insurance arm of CLICO and suffered a loss after the Supervisor neglected to do his duty should be compensated by Government. Further, after the Supervisor failed to do his duty resulting in losses to policyholders; the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance gave assurances that the company was safe which lead to even further losses. It can be argued that as a result that Government was guilty of negligence and or fraud against the policyholders and should make good the losses to them.

    Also, when the fecal matter hit the fan, rather than comply with the law Government’s hands were too dirty to show them in public so they set up an oversight committee,headed by a blithering idiot, that gave people time to further loot the company. Now after the looting they took the fist step last and went to court to place the company in judicial management.

    Ask yourselves if the company was placed in judicial management at the first opportunity would the policyholders and investors be better off. If I were foolish enough enough to invest money in a company that was controlled by Leroy Parris, I would hae sued the Government long ago.


  2. Congratulations to the idiot Judicial Managers who, after 2 years of flying kites up and down the Caribbean, have finally managed to achieve the worst possible outcome for all those affected. You were certainly worth the tens of millions of dollars you have sucked from the company.


  3. Bus Driver

    HA HA HA You are the best … HA HA HA

    Still can’ un’stand how Oliver Jordan get to be the head of this Judging Company after his failure in a measurable high profile administrative responsibility just a couple years ago. Seems to me that academics WILL be rewarded irrespective of track record or real worth …

    So Children go to school and learn well
    Otherwise later on in life yah gun ketch real hell …


  4. There are 35,000 quite vocal Clico investors out there who seem to think Government should make up the difference between what is left in CLICO’s coffers after the company (1) was spectacularly badly run (2) made some seriously bad investments and (3) was milked dry of all its cash by its parent company.
    As a tax payer and non-CLICO investor, I commiserate with those who put money into CLICO. I do not think, though, that it should be taken for granted that the role of Government is to make up for losses sustained by private individuals when investing in private companies.
    Some countries do have guarantee schemes for banks etc. Barbados has no such scheme.
    As a non-CLICO investor and taxpayer, if the choice is for Government to use my tax money to bail out the losses made by CLICO investors, or to build a new hospital, I am afraid I reluctantly vote for the hospital.
    While I do not support Government picking up the bill, can I suggest another route? Prove that Government or its agent was negligent.
    Surely the way forward is for the CLICO investors to put pressure on the Judicial Manager to take action against the Supervisor of Insurance? If the contention is that he failed in his duty, then prove it in Court. If you can, then even people like me will accept that Government should pay.


  5. Yes of course the GoB is culpable through dereliction of duty, and so too the accountants of CLICO who must be guilty of providing less than stellar information to decision makers …!


  6. Wunna realy think that Accountants are looking for the trut?????
    Now dat is mocksport! You pay the fat fees and you gets what you wants!


  7. There is absolutely no doubt that CLICO was a BIG contributor to both political parties. Now sure knowlege of this would make the political parties culpable as well … The parties run the administrations that appoint the people that do their bidding and decisions are made by their members that result in the kind of thing that we are faced with today. Now why the f#ck should tax payers pick up the tab for what is essential the wrong doing of both political parties ??? Do you see where this argument is headed?


  8. St George’s Dragon

    Well said.

    when Trade Confirmers went belly up, the Government of the day did nothing to help the investors.

    No prizes for guessing correctly which political party formed the government at that time.

    Hint: the political party’s name begins with a “B”.


  9. “It can be argued that as a result that Government was guilty of negligence and or fraud against the policyholders and should make good the losses to them.”

    br cas, i had two policies both of which recently matured and as a poor man this has obviously put me back tremendously, but i cannot in good conscience expect the taxpayers to refund me for my losses. now, if there was a system in place that those persons found sleeping on the job were made to contribute to the losses of the policy holders out of their personal assets, then i could accept that line of argument. now, after all the hullaballoo, it is clear that mr parris would never have to answer for his role in the matter and by extension his legal advisor who despite his now more than obvious complicity in the matter continues to be accorded hero status even by mr stuart who seems to forget that the worst tonguelashing Mr Thompson received in his life in politics came not from the BLP but from Mr Stuart himself.


  10. David,

    It would be informative if you would publish a timeline of events surrounding the CLICO failure which would establish:

    1. When did CLICO start issuing EFPA’s
    2. When did the Sup. of Ins. issue his cease and desist order and what value of EFPA’s was issued thereafter.
    3. When did the collapse actually occur.
    4. When was the oversight committee established and its composition.
    5. What period elapsed between the end of oversight of the committee and the installation of the Judicial Manager


  11. Yesterday the PM promised policyholders they will get back at least the principal amount of their investment. The only “haircut” investors will be asked to take according to Freundel Stuart the Barber is the interest component of their investments.

    Now who is dealing with reality here? The JM’s or the PM?

    The PM has committed his government again to policyholders. Is he going to follow through by announcing this solution in Parliament as he has done before or is this just another electioneering ploy to pull further wool over the policyholders’ eyes?

    It’s interesting to note that the PM also said that his administration was never for the JM route but preferred the Oversight Committee model of resolving the CLICO problem.
    What really is going on in this man’s mind?


    • @miller

      As you know this matter is under the ward of the court and the JMs are instructed by the courts. Now that the courts have directed the JMs it is up to the government to intervene with a “political” solution. What is so hard to understand?


  12. David | October 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM |
    “The result will be that policyholders will be lucky to see as much as 50 cents on the dollar. ”

    Is the PM remark made yesterday a statement of confirmation of the above proposal or is it an alternative political solution? If it is an alternative political solution that is guaranteeing policy holders a return of the ‘principal’ component of their investments is the PM referring to EFPA’s only or is he including those holding annuities for life insurance and pension contracts?
    This is where the confusion lies. Can you shed any light here, David?


    • @Miller

      BU has always held that a political solution must be found if the DLP hopes to win over the CLICO vote. It makes better policy for the policyholder to take a haircut, this has always been BU’s position. The good of thew national economy must be paramount. However we know that politicians do what will get the vote.


  13. @ David | October 28, 2012 at 9:24 AM |

    Are you implying that the guarantee given to policy holders by the PM (return of 100% principal) is just a vote catching exercise since the national economy cannot afford such light trimming instead of a real haircut?

    In other words, the PM’s promise of 100 % principal is just another serving of political sugarcoating in hogwash economic terms. The country- given the current gloomy and expected further deterioration of economic landscape- just can’t afford this 100% principal nonsense promised in electioneering cast iron.


    • @Miller

      We all know that growing debt will create a drag on any economy i.e. stunting growth. Connect the dots.


  14. @ Carson C. Cadogan | October 27, 2012 at 9:52 PM |

    We the members of the BU household would like to hear from you regarding the PM”s recent promise of guaranteeing the return of principal to CLICO investors.

    Are you backing the PM on this one or are you still adamant the CLICO investors (like Barrack) will get back or be paid NOT One ‘Red’ Cent under a DLP administration.
    If you are so relentless in your stance then which is backed by your party’s position are you then calling your leader a deceitful liar?
    Do you believe that the PM is being disingenuous just to cool the tempers of the CLICO lobby group before the bell is announced next month? After all a promise is a comfort to fool and which greater fool there is in the eyes of politicians than the electorate.


  15. Freundel and the DLP are nothing but a bunch of empty promises, and on the eve of elections they are even more desperate than ever. If Clico policy holders do get back 100% of their principal, it won’t be under the DLP.

    Whatever happened to that last offer they made to Al Barack of $60m? Did he accept it?


    • Why is Terence Thorhill still Chairman of EGFL? Or are we mistaken? Many of the Directors of CLICO companies in Barbados claimed they were not aware of what Parris was doing – Tony Marshall, Leslie Haynes and the lot. We don’t have the board minutes to disprove neither has the government or judicial manager also BIPA tried to prove director liability. No one can say that Terence Thornhill was not aware of what Paris was doing. He signed the damn cheques!


    • Inkwell | October 28, 2012 at 6:28 AM | | Edit asked the following in an earlier comment. Please see the following:

      David,

      It would be informative if you would publish a timeline of events surrounding the CLICO failure which would establish:
      1. When did CLICO start issuing EFPA’s
      This Nation link speaks to some confusion whether the EFPA was to be sole to individuals and companies. This goes back to October 2008.
      2. When did the Sup. of Ins. issue his cease and desist order and what value of EFPA’s was issued thereafter.
      see above
      3. When did the collapse actually occur.
      CL Financial intervened in T&T in 2009
      4. When was the oversight committee established and its composition.
      William Layne led Oversight committee was installed in May 2009
      5. What period elapsed between the end of oversight of the committee and the installation of the Judicial Manager
      The JMs were appointed in April 2011
       
       


    • The following story is of interest it what many described as the biggest Ponzi to hit this part of the world:

      CLICO FUNDS IN DUPREY’S HANDS

      By ANDRE BAGOO Sunday, October 28 2012
      click on pic to zoom in

      FORMER CL Financial (CLF) executive chairman Lawrence Duprey failed to disclose to the Clico board a power of attorney he reportedly used to divert Clico dividend income – potentially worth hundreds of millions – away from Clico, according to the findings of a Sunday Newsday investigation.

      The power of attorney, dated April 23, 2005, gave Duprey – as well as former Clico director Andre Monteil – power to receive “all money owing to the company and to receive dividends or other distribution to the company” and to invest “any of the company’s money in such investments as they consider appropriate”.

      http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,168408.html


  16. millertheanunnaki(neitherBnorD)

    You know my position on it already, I would leave it right where it is let the BLP sort it out since they created the problem.

    There you go again calling an election date. You are just plain “hard ears”.


  17. As St. George Dragon said, there is no compelling reason to use my tax dollars to bailout a private company.

    Or words to that effect.


  18. All CLICO policyholders under the age of 16 should be reimbursed every single cent that they have in that Ponzi scheme.
    Bushie would strongly support any efforts made by government to protect the rights and monies of any children who unwisely invested in Paris’s scam.
    When it comes to ADULTS taking conscious decisions to go after attractive dividends and engage in risky behaviors however – it escapes a simple bushman how it can become government’s (read that as Bushie’s taxes) liability.

    To be honest, if Bushie had invested significant funds in CLICO without a through check of that organization’s history and particularly its leadership, OR if, despite the findings of such a check, the bushman had gone ahead and invested…..Bushie would be hard pressed to run around blaming the government/JM/court for not ‘looking after’ Bushie’s funds.

    Adults are expected to make responsible decisions and to stand by the consequences of their actions.
    What government needs to do is to enforce the laws and prosecute those guilty of criminal behavior. Policy holders should seek to take control of the company and then decide on their best actions….either sell the assets and recover funds or establish a viable new operation.
    …waiting around for some (crooked) government official to come and save these big able adults from their errors in judgement is pathetic….


    • Bushie

      As usual, you missed the point. The Supervisor of Insurance had a statutory duty to report on and regulate the operations of all insurance companies. He gave a clean bill of health to CLICO, certifying that it was sound. Investors and policyholders relied on the assurances of the Supervisor of Insurance and invested their money. It turned out that the Supervisory of Insurance knew or ought to have known that CLICO was in trouble. His negligence is therefore directly responsible for the losses that were incurred by investors and policyholders. If he had given an honest report on the operations of CLICO and people ignored it then and only then would they be responsible for their own plight.

      If an audit firm had given those assurances, they would be liable to make good the loss to anyone who lost money as a result of their negligence. What makes a Government agency any different? Since the collapse of CLICO, Government went to Parliament and put legislation in place to say that the Financial Services Commission, the agency that replaced the Supervisor of Insurance, would not be liable if something similar occurred. Why would they need legislation to remove their liability for a company’s failure if they were not already liable?


    • @Caswell

      How would the SOI have known the financial health of CLICO? Have we not acknowledge on BU that his Office was undermanned and he would have used the audited financials to determine financial health? Did any of those financials carry and audit exception/notes?


    • David

      It was his job to know. He had a statutory duty to know. Why should his inability to do his job be held against unsuspecting investors and policyholders. Government undertook that duty and cannot be allowed to walk away from their duty because it failed to adequately perform its duty. It is Government’s fault that it did not put the necessary staff in place. None of the policyholders or investors had a duty to put the necessary staff in place to monitor and regulate. Why should they pay for someone else’s failure.

      I believe a case against the Government is the way to go since Government even failed to apply to the court to appoint a judicial manager according to law. Instead, Government’s preference was to put a questionable oversight committee in place which allowed people to cover their tracks.


  19. Do any of you believe that Leroy Parris was so intelligent he ran the clicoponzi on his own?Do you really think he was capable of orchestrating this investment in quicksand?

    He was a gofer for Duprey.

    Trickidadians carway wunna rice wid duh meat.

    The question is will Duprey and his co conspirators be arrested and charged or will this just die a natural death.

    The Barbados Government will bail out Clico as promised by PM Stuart and possible PM Arthur because a lot of Bees and Dees had investments in Clico.


    • @Hants A good place to start is the directors he has around him and his executive officers – Tony Marshall, Leslie Haynes, Woodbine Davis, Terence Thornhill, Jepter Ince, Geoffrey Brewster etc.


  20. Caswell, is your address Nairi Fairi land…? Are you serious?
    …a man like you who have been around politicians for so many years and you talking about relying on civil servants?

    what statutory duty what?!
    The SOI was a ‘chicken feed maker’ put into that position by your then party precisely because he had not a clue.
    Even if he had, Bushie is saying that anyone depositing significant amounts of their savings with an Insurance Company with a relatively limited track record OWED IT TO THEMSELVES to ask some questions and get some answers.

    Bushie only had to see LP on TV ONCE to avoid CLICO like the plague.
    LOL ..how much they take you for Caswell…?


    • Bushie

      They did not take me for one red cent. I worked with Parris at Da Costa and Musson in the 1970s and that was enough to tell me not to invest any money in anything run by him. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine wanted to invest his gratuity in CLICO and consulted me in the process. The money is now relatively safe in a credit union: he even offered me a little reward when CLICO collapsed because he credited me with saving his nest egg. Before you ask, I did not take his money.


  21. One would have thought that the Judicial Managers would have followed the money trail and would have asked the courts to put the sale on any CLICO properties on hold, out of the reach away from the present team at CLICO. But no, Mr Jordan has said that he has no control over CLICO Holdings. What the hell am I hearing? All these properties were bought out of CLICO Life’s policyholders monies.

    The only sensible settlement I think would be for the court to allow the JM’s to hold all of CLICO’s assets, sell them for whatever you can get for them and share the monies out to the policyholders. Some company would be glad to purchase the life insurance business without the incumbrances. Every asset of the dead king and Leroy Parris should be seized as well. As someone said above, there is no way that Leroy Parris could have run the CLICO ponzi scheme on his own, he is not that bright.

    Is it Terrance Thornhill who is leaking the Enterprise Growth Fund’s business on this blog out of spite? This is so unethical. By the way, these grants people are taking about are really loans that have to be repaid as far as I understand.


  22. LOL @ Caswell
    ..Bushie is not surprised that you did not accept the reward.
    What is surprising is that you (of all people) would seek to put the liability for this tragedy on the SOI.
    How is this different to some of the nonsense that was done by a certain credit union, of which you were a former member, WHILE YOU WERE ON THE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE? Were you not effectively the SOI (Supervisor of Integrity) at that CREDIT Union then? Will YOU be liable if these ventures fail?

    The whole point of these operations is that INDIVIDUALS are required to take an interest in the management of their interests….not leave it up to some functionary who may or may not be competent- or even if competent, may not be EFFECTIVE.
    Where individuals fail to take any such proactive interests in their own affairs, DO NOT LOOK TO BUSHIE’S TAXES to make up for their carelessness.


    • Bushie

      I am glad that you referred to my role as a member of the Supervisory Committee of Public Workers Credit Union when the major stealing started to take root. I did my duty to the best of my ability so no liability for any failure would have attached to me. When the other supervisors refused to do the right thing, I went alone and reported wrongdoing to the relevant authority. I recall reporting some directors who were embezzling funds to the Police, Registrar, Minister and DPP.

      The police covered up the crime at the behest of the late PM who then got the credit union to overpay for CLICO Mortgage Finance Company. Mind you, he overruled the NIS Board to lend them the money to purchase CMCF because the credit union could not afford it. Now Bushie you see how all the corruption ties up to a small clique called DLP. The president and treasurer at various times during these transactions was one man who is the son of a former DLP Speaker of the House.


  23. There should be no confusion about the role of the Supervisor of Insurance. This not a person who we can let off the hook if he is not up to the task. The Supervisor is a Government appointed animal whose job is to regulate the conduct of insurance companies under the Insurance Act.
    If the SOI is negligent, Government has been negligent and may be liable to anyone to whom it owes a duty of care.
    Members of BIPA must take this whichever way they want as my position is that Government should not automatically pay for their losses.
    My advice is for them to establish a case against the SOI, the auditors and Directors of the company. They shouldn’t just push for Government to make up the difference in their losses; they should make the Judicial Manager do his job – which is to maximise the return for the shareholders/investors by pursuing the people responsible who didn’t do their jobs properly..


    • Why should BIPA act or think differently when the BLP Opposition has supported them in their claim against the crown?


    • This why BU challenged the leadership of Fowler. Her knowledge level means she has to be advised in all aspects of this matter unlike her T&T counterpart who is a creature of the financial environment.


  24. I had to laugh today when I read in the Nation where Freundel Stuart appears to be making a case, replete with convoluted illogic, for blaming the BLP, ie. Mia Mottley, for the current situation with the Judicial Managers. Once again suggesting that the BLP is to blame for everything that took place during this administration.

    His case seems to be that the DLP was forced against its better judgement to bring in the Judicial Managers because of the strident advocacy for this by the Opposition. He appears to be suggesting that the Oversight committee would have done a much better job of securing the creditors money than the JM but that he was persuaded to change to the JM option because of the Opposition calling for JM.

    I suspect most people in Barbados can see the fallacy in this argument and the tacit admission in it that simple logic is not the PM’s strongpoint. Hint. He did not have to accede to the pressure from Mia Mottley’s calling for a JM which facility is the normally used one in cases like this, in fact, making that point is an unforced error of epic proportions; The CLICO horses with the stolen moneybags had bolted even during the Oversight’s committee’s stint and the cleverly designed TOR’s for both the Oversight committee and the Judicial Management seems to have allowed for further significant depletion of the resources during the JM’s tenure.

    Something does not seem quite right here.


  25. It is not always necessary for someone to be an expert in a subject to be able to do their job well. A good leader and manager can achieve great things without expert knowledge.
    Chris Sinckler is not an economist but he is Minister of Finance.
    OK, on reflection, that is not a good example – I will try and think of a better one.


  26. @ Caswell
    So how can you be sure that the SOI did not encounter similar obstacles to those that you experienced?

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that the SOI, Parris, Board members, Auditors, other CLICI Staff and the Government must be held accountable and ideally prosecuted for their various roles.

    HOWEVER anyone who trusted their life savings to this collection of thieves and idiots cannot escape a significant degree of personal responsibility.
    Bushie’s question is this…..
    WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THE LAWS OF BARBADOS?
    WHY ARE CHARGES NOT BEING BROUGHT AGAINST OBVIOUS FRAUDSTERS?


    • Bushie

      I don’t care if the Supervisor of Insurance encountered obstacles from politicians. He had an independent, statutory role to perform and should have said to the Minister, “Put you request in writing please”. No sensible minister would issue an illegal order in writing. Failing the written instructions, he should have carried out his duty in accordance with the law. If the Minister was offended and tried to manoeuvre his departure from the job, they would have to promote the Supervisor to say permanent secretary.


    • @Caswell

      You are making a good point and the SOI was one of the government agencies fingered by international institution for strengthening. The truth is we never thought a CLCIO could happen here. You should note CLICO was a catastrophic failure i.e. all across the Caribbean. Perhaps St. Georges point is valid. Let BIPA prove to what extent the SOI failed.


  27. @ St George’s Dragon

    -Fruendel is clearly not a leader but he is Prime Minister
    -Owen has not yet explained why he deposited that cheque, but he wants to be PM again.
    – Onions can’t even hold down a job without political patronage, yet he is likely to be a Board Chairman under a BLP government. 🙂

    It is only natural that Belgrave would have been appointed SOI…..in B’dos.

    ….


  28. David;

    Thanks for putting up the partial timeline on CLICO which I only just had sight of. I think it is time someone put up a much more detailed timeline. Such a timeline might put to rest some of the misconceptions that have gained ground on this blog about CLICO; David Thompson’s involvement in the debacle; FS’ involvement; Owen Arthur’s involvement also; The SOI’s role and responsibility for the EFPAs being sold illegally; His/Her authority being thwarted by LP’s use of the ploy of access to DT; etc. etc.

    It may even turn out that the SOI might not be as culpable in this matter as many on this blog thinks.


  29. ‘As usual, you missed the point. The Supervisor of Insurance had a statutory duty to report on and regulate the operations of all insurance companies. He gave a clean bill of health to CLICO, certifying that it was sound.”

    BRO CAS, I AM AT A LOSS HERE.LONG AFTER THE SUPERVISOR OF INSURANCE WOULD IN YOUR PINION HAVE FAILED IN HIS STATUTORY DUTY; THE THEN PRIME MINISTER OF BARBADOS, THE HONOURABLE MR DAVID THOMPSON ALSO EMPHAICALLY ASSURED BARBADIANS THAT CLICO WAS SOUND AND WAS A WELL RUN COMPANY AND ASSURED BARBADIANS THAT THEIR INVESTMENTS WERE SAFE AND PROCEEDE TO PUMP 10 MILLION OF TETAXPAYERS MONEY INTO THE COMPANY TO EMPHASIZE ITS SOUNDNESS. WAS MR THOMPSON LYING TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE SOUNDNESS OF THE COMPANY?


    • Balance

      I saw him on television when he made the statement: he lied to the country with a straight face. But what do you expect, CLICO had only recently illegally bankrolled the elections that brought the DLP to power. It was payback plain and simple.


  30. David,

    Thanks for the timeline provided. One point, Question 5 sought to establish the period between the end of the oversight committee’s supervision and the beginning of Judicial management, where the company would have been unsupervised.

    As I recall, the Oversight Committee’s mandate ended after one year (subject to correction) There would therefore have been a period of approximately one year…between May 2010 and April 2011 when the company was back in Parris’ hands to do with as he pleased.

    Can you confirm?


  31. @Inkwell

    You are correct that there was an “uncomfortable” window between expiry of the mandate given to the Oversight Committee and when the JMs were appointed. In fact if memory serves Leroy Parris was only forced out when the JMs too over. Will research and revert.


  32. @ Carson Cadogan Oct28 at 1:22
    “You know my position on it already, I would leave it right where it is let the BLP sort it out since they created it.”

    CLICO is a problem that must be attended to urgently and you said leave it for the BLP should fix.

    Thanks for conceding defeat.


  33. @ patenham | October 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM |
    “Thanks for conceding defeat.”

    The gravamen or import of that statement is way too high for poor CCC to understand or even appreciate. DEMS GONE!!! LOL!!


  34. @ David:

    Do you agree that Mrs June Fowler the leading spokesperson for BIPA needs to shut her mouth?
    What’s wrong with her?

    Let her put pressure on the PM to fulfil his promise of giving them back the principal element of their investments?

    The CLICO JM’s proposal for all investors to take a similar cut across all classes of policyholders is totally unfair and ridiculous. Why should life insurance and pension annuitants suffer the same fate and loss as those gamblers holding the greedy, and riskier EFPA’s?


    • @Miller

      PM Stuart is on record stating the government has to wait on the courts BUT the government remains committed to honoring its promise of satisfying the principal of CLICO policyholders. He was quick to make the political point that the opposition et al wanted the matter to go to JM and here is the result of it.


  35. Persons who did business with the insurance arm of CLICO and suffered a loss after the Supervisor neglected to do his duty should be compensated by Government.

    Really ! Really! Really! I dont think so !
    Most of these people are DLP hacks who were playing politics and saw it as supporting the DLP. That is kind of stupid partisan nonsense


  36. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 1:26 PM |

    But the proposal before the Court is dependent on the government’s acceptance before the Court can give legal approval to its execution. That proposal, however, is different (although less costly) from the one the PM is publicly promising but refuses to debate or officially agree to in Parliament.

    The ball is in the government’s court, David and you know it! The PM is playing ‘strategic politics’ until after the elections when he would then sell the BIPA down the river in the JM’s proposal boat. Where is the money to repay principal going to come from when the total principal alone is way above the current market value of the net assets of CLICO Barbados?

    He is tactfully eschewing any commitment to the JM’s deep haircut on the eve of the elections by promising a most unrealistic ‘return of principal’ solution to the BIPA to assuage the pain and put them in the comfort zone only fools reside. Barrack is still sticking around in that zone.


  37. @Miller

    Do you think the government can go in to a general election by not offering a palatable solution to policyholders? Can the government afford to alienate such a large constituent?


  38. @ Balance
    “It is only natural that Belgrave would have been appointed SOI…..in B’dos.” Why Bushie?
    **************
    The gravest mistake that continues to be made in Barbados is that you can put an idiot into a position, because he/she is politically connected, without mostly destroying and retarding the national interest.
    Both parties, most businesses, most state agencies, most family businesses do it.
    BUT IT iS INANE!
    Leadership/Management is THE MOST CRITICAL FACTOR FOR SUCCESS in this world, and this is PARTICULARLY so in the ultra complex world of the 21st Century.

    UNTIL THIS NATIONAL IDIOCY CHANGES, and appointments are made based on ABILITY, CAPABILITY and HISTORY of performance, we will continue our downward slide to poverty.
    UNTIL we judge managers and workers based on performance and operate a national meritocracy …WE ARE DOOMED!
    So Belgrave’s appointment was in keeping with national standards.

    …let Bushie know if this answer balances with you. 🙂


  39. @ David
    So are you suggesting that should a large enough group of Bajans get together and invest in Everglades real estate, or in the Brooklyn Bridge, there will be no serious risk of any financial loss as long as there is an election due?


    • @Bush Tea

      You know that yours is a very generous interpretation of the position. There was a catastrophic regulatory failure across the region. To compound it for Barbados a PM flanked by the former SOI and Governor of the CBB assured policyholders their investment was safe. The matter is no longer one of ‘normal’ market failure. Added to the equation’ it has become a political football.

      @Miller

      The PM is probably going to say to BIPA you wanted the matter to go to JM and look what has happened. Here is what the government will do to top up the offer. Don’t ask BU how the government intended to finance the hole.


  40. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM |

    Are you implying that the DLP, through the PM Stuart, is promising the CLICO policyholders, because of their potentially impactful electoral influence, what they want to hear and not what is financially realistic as identified by the JMs?
    That might be a bit too low below the belt but you are one tough cookie that can take some knocks here and there.


  41. What CLICO policyholders are entitled to expect, is for the DPP and the police to investigate thoroughly what happened to all the money, as happened in the United States with both Stanford and Madoff in that they were investigated by the District Attorney and the FBI. IN THE MEANTIME, their assets were frozen. In
    Madoff’s case, the authorities were able to sieze and sell his multi-million dollar penthouse, and the proceed were shared among the investors. I sympathise with the argument about taxpayers not footing the bill, but for Heaven’s sake something should have been done to nail the perpetrators of what appears to be a massive fraud in the least, and grand theft in the most. This is where the policyholders main complaint with government lies. The government did nothing other than give the thieves time to cover their tracks. The anecdotal evidence of what went on at CLICO would make even Stanford blush. As voters, policyholders should make it clear that they want ALL their money, and that it should come from the assets of the perpetrators of this fraud.


  42. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM |

    And to make matters worse the clown calling herself chief cook and bottle washer for BIPA is allowing herself to be treated like ‘piggy in the middle’ by the politicians from both sides of the pitch. Both political leaders are wooing her and her band of financial illiterates by promising her unrealistic solutions to the CLICO affair.

    The market value of the remaining assets would take a nosedive as soon as the Barbados economy goes into meltdown or come under special heavy measures by the IMF leaving the policyholders holding the entire shitty financial stick.
    The only ones benefitting from this long drawn out affair are the JM’s and Terrence Thornhill.
    Up to now the stupid woman has not made any known moves to sue the directors and officers of the Barbados operations. Why is she not calling for the removal of Thornhill, a high class gofer and financial handyman that covered up many of the transactions that led to the collapse of the local operations?


    • @Miller

      Isn’t Fowler on record stating BIPA is raising money to pay legal cost to take the matter further? This is where BIPA is at a disadvantage because Parris can spend millions to support litigation.

      Perhaps a group of young lawyers may see the opportunity to build a reputation and claim payment in lieu of settlement.


  43. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 4:18 PM |
    “Perhaps a group of young lawyers may see the opportunity to build a reputation and claim payment in lieu of settlement.”

    Brilliant suggestion! Maybe Douglas Trotman can take the lead. They will have my unending respect and admiration.
    But this is not the UK or USA. You can be sure these guys will be ostracized both socially and in business and deprived of the opportunity to work gainfully by the entrenched powers that form part of the CLICO scam circle.

    Maybe we can get Hal Gollop to climb the moral mountain top and switch sides and like a true Christian soldier put on the armour of God and fight this wicked evil in the name of true justice.


    • @Miller

      What are you saying?

      Are you suggesting counsel Gollop is the only one with the moral fibre to wrestle the Clico Beast to the ground?


  44. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM |

    That is the image he tries to project. That of a morally intoxicated Don Quixote but with an air of sanity about him.
    Representing Leroy Parris and CLICO is a major affront to his misguided desire to appear as Mr. Clean and Upright in our legal world.
    Switching sides like Saul on the road to Damascus would provide the golden opportunity to honestly earn his much desired silk and subsequent knighthood of St. Andrew and be a true son of the soil to readily drink from the chalice of justice and fair play.


  45. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM |

    Every person is entitled to due process and legal representation in a court of law.
    There are so many powerful crooks in that profession choosing one to represent Parris would be like shooting at monkeys fishing in a barrel.

    Ask “Amused” or even ac’s husband for confirmation

    I would recommend the erudite Leslie Haynes or even the successfully honest Michael Lashley when he is removed from the Cabinet to represent Parris.
    Birds of a feather tend to fly together.


    • Interesting to listen to Fowler on the news blaming the regulatory system and poor management at CLICO BUT no mention of any culpability of the External Auditors.


  46. @ David | November 5, 2012 at 9:18 PM |

    Other than not having a helicopter appreciation of the CLICO incestuous fiasco you must remember her ‘other-half’ is part of that “see and don’t see” brotherhood for the sake of audit fees to keep the firm alive in a very competitive market

    By threatening to sue the local auditors, PwC Int’l would be prepared to give a little to the BIPA movers and shakers in order to keep them quiet and avoid any semblance of the Arthur Andersen scandal especially in the current financial regulatory environment in which auditors and banks are under the microscope.

    A piece of advice to Mrs. Fowler and her personal advisor Robert: Get the CLICO Auditors involved in any litigation proceedings BIPA is contemplating. You stand a much better chance of getting an attractive out-of-court settlement. Please don’t foul up this time!


  47. When is the Government of Barbados going to follow the Trinidad Government and launch criminal investigations into the actions of the CLICO executives?

    We just can’t expect this DLP administration to initiate such. The leader of that party and head of the government has made it clear that the erstwhile CEO of the Barbados-based CLICO business operations is not a leper and is certainly his pal. We do not see him reneging of his loyalty and commitment to protect the leper. After all, it was the same leper that allegedly pumped millions into the families First Account in the last DLP general elections campaign to buy the votes of many especially those in the SMNW riding and recently mentioned by David Ellis on his Brasstacks show.

    That blatant act of buying votes to ensure the successful candidate was able to sip pink champagne and drive around a jag as a token of appreciation and recognition of political favours promised was not only against the rules governing the holding of elections but also demonstrated the immoral depth that damned lying political party was prepared to sink in order to achieve power to carve up the fatted calf aka the taxpayers’ money.

    The leader of BLP, on the other hand, has promised to initiate criminal investigations.
    He needs to repeat this promise and make it No. 16 in his restore and rebuild recovery point plan. We do not want any fair-weather promises like that of reactivating the PAC to carry out Parliamentary investigation into the Pierhead marina redesign swindle.
    The BLP would be found wanting if it fails to carry out its commitment to the aggrieved CLICO policyholders and bring back a sense of fairness and justice and respect to the once good name of Barbados in regional and international political and financial circles.


  48. Miller, I can’t see your problem with June Fowler. She is one of the few who has stuck out her neck to try and get some justice in this case. Unless you are privy to the meetings that go on within BIPA, and unless you are aware that there are some VERY high powered accountanat and attorneys acting as advisors, how would you know who is being pursued in this matter? Legal action takes money, and many of the policy holders have had their money stolen. Can you throw in, say, $50,000 to help the cause? At least you would, for once, be putting your money where your mouth is.


  49. @ Peltdownman | November 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM |

    My problem with June Fowler is not at any personal level. It is with the political role (and I do not mean party politics here) she has assigned to herself. She is allowing herself to be courted by politicians and if she thinks that any political administration would ever be in a position to use taxpayers’ money to return the policyholders’ investment she is certainly living in cloud cuckoo land.

    Not even one lawsuit has been brought against the directors or any officer of CLICO. Why is she not calling for the removal of Terrence Thornhill from that company? He is the financial brains behind the scam and fraud that cause the local operations to be in the current position. Why is Thornhill still being paid a huge salary and benefits from the premiums of the suckers calling themselves members of BIPA?

    Is she, June Fowler, so blind as to not see that the perpetrators at the local end of this fraud are protected by the hierarchy of the DLP and still play important roles in the current political administration affairs? Terrence Thornhill sits on the Board of the EGFL and Leroy Parris is not only a consultant but also a key player in determining political strategy and ‘in like Flynn’ in the DLP sanctum sanctorum because of financial investments in electoral campaigning.

    Until she comes out and calls for the removal of Thornhill and make it abundantly clear that the directors and officers, especially Leroy Parris and Terrence Thornhill, will be sued both jointly and severally as provided under the Companies Act then she remains in the eyes of fair-minded intelligent people as just a political prostitute and rubbish to be discarded like a used condom after the coming elections.


  50. @Miller
    “political prostitute and rubbish to be discarded like a used condom after the coming elections.”

    Anyone who uses such comments is neither fair-mided, nor intelligent!


  51. @ Peltdownman | November 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM |

    Like a real hoax, you Petldownman, are a regular or john of mine.
    Time will tell who is the prostitute and who is in the condom when the elections are over.
    We will see how much hair the barber will take off the head of the CLICO policyholders, Kojak!
    All you have to do is come up with alternatives to what I am arguing. Don’t follow me into the gutter but come up with sound advice to June and submit imaginative proposals to relieve the pain of the policyholders. Or are you living up to your name and just fooling the people like the PM (Principal Maker)?

Leave a comment, join the discussion.