Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Roosevelt Skerrit, Prime Minister of Dominica - photo credit Dominica News
Roosevelt Skerrit, Prime Minister of Dominica – photo credit: Dominica News

On 27 April 2013 Barbados Underground (BU) posted the blog Who Are the Local Partners in Cost-U-Less?. Although the Prime Minister of Dominica Roosevelt Skerrit has denied the word making the rounds that he is a local shareholder, BU defends our right to ask questions of Skerrit or anyone in the interest of providing clarification.

In the interest of providing further clarification it should be noted that the Companies Act Cap 308 places sole responsibility of managing the company in the hands of the Directors. What this means is that unless a shareholder choses to be a Director the public is left to speculate who are the shareholders. The Act is drafted to protect the Shareholder who  – if not a Director – has no say in the conduct of the company.

BU reiterates our position taken in the original blog, in the interest of transparency the other names mentioned (Hartley Henry, the Estate of David Thompson and Leroy Parris) should state publicly whether they have an interest in Cost U Less (CUL).  The government has approved significant concessions to CUL and given the names mentioned the public has a right to know. It should be noted that Pricesmart has since denied receiving similar concessions. Also at the time of launch it was widely reported that David Staples represented local shareholder interest. Perhaps in the interest of protecting its goodwill CUL should make a public statement stating who are the local shareholders.

This report has generated a lot of interest in Dominica and across the Caribbean. Prime Minister Skerrit’s denial was carried in the Dominica News Online. BU notes also that on the 5.30PM Voice of Barbados (VoB) news of 7 May 2013 a report on Skerrit’s denial was carried. Interesting to BU was that the VoB report made no mention of the source of the report. It’s reference was to a Barbados ‘website’. It is no secret that ‘the blogs’ and traditional media in Barbados do not represent one love. However, we believe that in the interest of accurately reporting news the traditional media has a right to maintain the journalistic integrity of the Fourth Estate. The irony is that if the website was not a blog or even if it was a blog in ANOTHER country the name of the ‘website’ would have been mentioned. Members of the BU household cannot boast of being presented with the latest Blackberry from LIME or VIP tickets to functions etc. In other words we have no obligation to be soft when blogging on any issue.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


  1. In a related matter if we are talking about transparency:

    Why is it that we Vincentians continue to fool ourselves into believing that every ‘white’ investor can be trusted? The developments concerning Harlequin Property, developers of the Buccama Resort, is the most recent proof of how foolhardy we can be.

    It is time persons here tell the truth about this investment. Harlequin Property, described as a UK-based overseas property sales agent responsible for soliciting investment in the Buccama Bay project, is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, UK, and the situation is so bad that Harlequin Property has lost two auditors in under three years.

    http://thevincentian.com/come-clean-on-harlequin-property-p2830-112.htm


  2. @ David

    I have long called for a new Companies Act. Shareholders are the legal owners of the company under English law, which the Barbados Act is based on.
    The names of directors and shareholders of a company should be publicly available information, from the register of companies. I am against shareholders holding their shares in hidden trusts or any such vehicle, as they can and are often used for dishonesty.
    This is another issue that should be on the government’s agenda.


  3. @Hal

    This is a matter which the lawyers will debate with you. Why expose the shareholders if the Directors are the ones who have fiduciary responsibility?

    We believe the Companies Act is heavily influenced by the Canadian version.


  4. as to name source of information. BU was mentioned on the CBC late night news as the source of information .


  5. @ac

    Thanks, missed that and kudos to them.

  6. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    DAVID

    Since YOU are interested in clarity, why don’t YOU come and tell Bajans who YOU are and stop your crusade of damaging other people’s good character?

    There you are, hiding behind anonymous “DAVID” but demanding that others tell you who they are.

    Is it just me or am I missing something here?


  7. The Public’s Right to Know … I suppose if it is said enough times it may actually become a true Right…


  8. Under the old Companies Act, 1910, every company made an annual return of its shareholders.

    In fact, you can go to CAIPO and search a company file of any former act company and its shareholders returns should be there, usually up to the mid 1980’s.

    With the advent of the new Companies Act this was no longer required. I recall hearing around 2000 that there was a change in the new act and it was possible to write the Secretary of a company for a list of that company’s shareholders.

    This is of course a lot different from the situation which existed under the 1910 act but, if it is true, it should be possible to find out who is a shareholder.

    The puzzle would be to figure out which Company to write and it might take some effort and persistence to uncover what someone has set out to hide.

    Oh for the good old days!!


  9. David

    As I said in an earlier blog, prior to the present Companies Act, shareholders were required to be registered at the Registry. The omission from the act has provided an avenue for fraud.

    If it is in fact correct that the persons named are shareholders, it would appear that the Minister, who granted the tax concessions, should face a charge of misfeasance in public office. Even without integrity legislation holders of public office can be brought before the court for their corrupt acts. However, that would require a Director of Public Prosecutions that is willing to deal with people who can eventually promote him.


  10. @Caswell

    This is why we feel it is in the interest of CUL to encourage local shareholders to declare their interest in the company. We want to believe also that DLP surrogates would support calls for greater transparency regarding these and other matters. It was not BU who promised transparency legislation in the shortest time if elected.

    BU is always puzzled how other media houses in the region continue to ‘rag’ Barbadians and Barbadian enties if dissatisfied about any issue BUT when BU turns the spotlight on them we are criticised by some. All in the name of being a political yardfowl we suppose.


  11. The people,s right to know was not an intent to spy or trampled on an individual rights to privacy. In our endeavour to be puritanical we might be overextending our hand in destrying the rights of every individual the pursuit of life. libery, and pusuit of happiness.


  12. David wrote,”BU defends our right to ask questions of Skerrit or anyone in the interest of providing clarification.”

    You do NOT have the right to question the leader of a foreign country.

    The leader of a foreign country that sells fruit and vegetables has no right to invest in a company in Barbados.
    That is a conflict of interest at every level


  13. On the subject of massaging the news whats the latest on the George Pain v Hinckson court case. Has Hinckson responded in court? He seem to make it clear he was not withdrawing his grave accusations of Payne’s character and that he’s got proof. Over the years they have been whispers about Payne’s reputed immense wealth. Hopefully this law suit can shed some light. David BU let justice and the court system prevail will you..


  14. The bottomline is that Barbados has modelled its Companies Act on that of developed countries. The issue here as ac correctly commented is one of confidentiality. If the shareholders are not liable under the Act why should they be named? However, in this case it is in the interest of CUL to name the local shareholders if it wants to appear open, like Pricesmart.

    Also there is the matter of foreign investment on which Barbados depends, heavily. To amend the law to make shareholders public would chase away the FDI which we need so badly. It is called selling your soul.


  15. the conflict of interest only arises if the shareholder being a govt official sits on the Board of directors of the company which can presenta certain level of biases leading to suspicion and certain perceptions by the viewing public also a blatant lack of ethics by the govt official whose first interest must be that of the people and not company. As for CUL release of names a practice which intself borders on being unethical since it is contractually bound to protect its shareholders..not a good idea


  16. @ac
    you definitely like a 3 speed bicycle.


  17. Carson C. Cadogan | May 8, 2013 at 6:12 AM |

    DAVID

    Since YOU are interested in clarity, why don’t YOU come and tell Bajans who YOU are and stop your crusade of damaging other people’s good character?

    Carson………..what good character???? when everyone of them is hiding something or has something to hide. Please explain.


  18. AC……………..i want some of what you been smoking……………..


  19. @ David

    The sharehodlers are the legal owners of the company, be it limited by guarantee or a listed company, and the public has a right to know who owns the company it is dealing with.
    If there is a secret register of shareholders then it creates a moral hazard, as has been pointed out, for fraud.
    It is that simple.
    Directors do not own the company, although they have a greater influence on how it is managed than many of the shareholders.


  20. What i would like to know is…………what would cost-u-less have to hide, if they are honestly doing business on the island without conflict of interest issues……….

    Carson, AC…………i see in today’s newspapers Cave Shepherd will have to lay off eventually and restructure…………

    I also see where Subway will seriously have to consider folding (closing)………..though i do not see the need for them to import chicken when there are farms on the island………..could yall explain as i am not on the ground?


  21. @Hal

    We are on the same side of the argument whether using commonsense or a moral position to decide. However under the Companies Act the legal responsibility for the company is vested in the Directors. The Directors are obviously appointed via shareholder meeting.

  22. David (not BU) Avatar
    David (not BU)

    @Carson C. Cadogan in his May 8, 2013 at 6:12 AM you are really the scum of this earth. you full well know what would happen if the owners of his blog step into the light and you blasted well know oh to well because you and the like of you would hammer the owners.

    look at how you attack the persons who use their name? but i understand, blame everyone else.


  23. Methinks Mr Skeritt doth protest too much. Makes me think that there is real truth in BU’s story!

    By the way did anyone see Hartley Henry on Caribvision two Sunday nights ago? I could not believe my ears and eyes……………..this same Hartley Henry who ripped into Carol Martindale and threathened to expose her private life to all and sundry when she refused to put his poll on the front page of a Sunday paper……all this with David Thompson’s blessing…………….this same Hartley Henry was criticising journalism practices in news rooms. My,my,my!


  24. AC is smoking sumting ??
    What is she smoking. Tell me quick. I am smoker of things and smoking things so that smokey could be the description of me if you seek that.

    Carson is the scum of the earth ?
    Is Carson of this earth ? People here dont seem to think so.

    Barbadians are talkers not doers so people like Leroy Parris and his ilk can get away with anything but take care yuh hear because these situations will lead to violent reactions


  25. Shareholders do not own company neither are their names listed as owners on the companies titles. they only interest is one mainly of providing capital in return for dividends or profits on their investments. in other words they are investors. .they can questions or make suggestions concerning policys of the company but are in no way effective in decision making or named as owners


  26. There are very gray areas when it is a corporation with a selected an annually or bi annually board of directors……………..very gray……………….and open to all types of fraud and corruption, lies and deceit…………again, if there is nothing to hide, it should be voluntary……………if there is something to hide, there will be secrets and denials.

  27. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    PRODIGAL SON

    “this same Hartley Henry who ripped into Carol Martindale and threathened to expose her private life to all and sundry ”

    Stop telling lies!!!

    Hartley did no such thing, Oh wait, “somebody told you so”.

    Mr. Gullible.

  28. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ ac | May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM |
    “Shareholders do not own company neither are their names listed as owners on the companies titles. they only interest is one mainly of providing capital in return for dividends or profits on their investments.”

    What the shit are we reading? Are you for real, ac?
    If shareholders do not own the company who do then? The government?
    The legal name of a company is just a figment of your imagination. It is capital that is the substance of the company. Who own the capital own the company or hold share(s) in that company. Get it?
    Just like the money in your bank account you own that capital so you own the bank account; but not the entire bank or manager.

  29. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    This is truly mind boggling

    An ANNOYMOUS MAN calling himself DAVID, is hiding under his bed with his laptop writing on an ANNOYMOUS BLOG he created CALLED BARBADOS UNDERGROUND.

    This anonymous person is retyping information sent to him by email from members and supporters of the crooked, corrupt BARBADOS LABOUR PARTY. information WHICH HAS NO BASSIS IN FACT. He is well aware of the lies but chooses to disseminate them none-the-less. The purposes of this vicious campaign are character assassination, vilification, mis-information and trouble making. He is not only seeking to Bloody the fine character of outstanding Barbadians he has now sunk to a new low, even for him. The Right Honorable Prime Minister of Dominica’s good name is now being dragged through the mud because of this anonymous DAVID.

    This is the man who is always seeking “integrity” from everyone but himself. He is such a hypocrite that he is demanding to know who is who but refuses to declare to all and sundry WHO HE IS!!!! That alone disqualifies him from asking any more silly questions.

  30. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    “if it wants to appear open, like Pricesmart.”

    Who are the LOCAL shareholders of PRICESMART?


  31. Carson……………even you gotta admit, without David’s blog we would not know a quarter of what is really going on in Bim, and you certainly would not know what the opposition is getting up to for your titillation.

    The taxpayers in Dominica are more than a little concerned about what Skerritt is getting up to, as they have all right to be…………….i know this, cause i also have a lot of relatives in Dominica and scattered throughout the Caribbean.


  32. One of the reported concessions is “ exemption for 15 years from the payment of withholding tax on dividends and interest to shareholders, financial institutions and individuals making loans to the company.”

    http://www.thedailyherald.com/regional/2-news/34607-arthur-criticises-concessions-for-warehouse-chain-cost-u-less-.html

    Now if a member of a Government was a shareholder in a company or made a loan to that company and then granted the above concessions to the said company that is a clear conflict of interest. Does anyone know if the above concession is one normally granted to an investor by Government?


  33. Carson………………i take it that yall have been trying really hard and cannot find out who he is…………..what’s the difference? transparency affects positive change in any society………..what is there to hide anyway?. Remember, your party said there will be transparency, what does it matter that it comes from a blog? They also said there will be integrity legislation…………


  34. Nostradamus | May 8, 2013 at 12:23 PM |

    One of the reported concessions is “ exemption for 15 years from the payment of withholding tax on dividends and interest to shareholders, financial institutions and individuals making loans to the company.”

    And this is where i see the problem, that is why the taxpayers are entitled to know who the shareholders are…………..regardless of how high AC is after she partook of whatever she smoked and spouted to the contrary…………when laws are broken, someone has to pay and explain. If there are existing conflict of interest laws on the statute books, they should be activated. The shareholders have all covered themselves very nicely using he gaggle of lawyers available to them within their little clique…….


  35. The leader of a foreign government should not own shares in a private business in Barbados.


  36. WELL, then Well! Wel! instead of verbal pontification point me and show where the laws are broken by the names mentioned its is not enough to point an accustory finger or sensationalise but to present facts. However its incumbent for every voter to CALL for laws and changes on these issues and put people in office who are willing to do so. Corporations have a right to protect their interest and not responsible For making law ..that responsibly lies solely in the hands of the voting public and their govt


  37. @ Carson Cadogan.

    David’s last name is Goliath. There you have it now so no more…..

    I encourage others on this site to liken your puerile behaviour to that of a big child, a farmer visitor who when invited to his neighbour’s house walks in the front house and puts his muddy, garden boots, with mud and excrement on the front room table while stating in your infantile voice “I does do dis home at my house/pigsty”

    Doan get you panties in a twist YET.

    Take a look at what you would refer to as the gateway to Heaven, the source of all wisdom, de DLP webs*ite.

    No I would feel dat a man like you, who does come in a nex man kitchen en tell he whu to cook cud recommend a site wid premiere culinary content en not de proctological excrement dat your brudders of de cloth does parade as PATHWAYS TO PROGRESS.

    You still wid me?

    Here you is telling David[BU] to undress heself fuh you to persecute he like de Spanish Inquisition en one only gots to look at you backyard en you going see a site dat get mek by de same advertising agency dat mek CGC advertisement “credible, reliabe, honest focused….

    You tek one look at Fumble en de nex fellow AG Adriel Batwit en you wud see whu de biology teach tell me grand daughter de udder day

    “Reptiles en lizards does not close dem eyes when dem is sleeping, de “focused” stare that you encounter wid dese creatures is not concentration but de blank vapid look of a creature that is asleep”

    Go take a look at www;dlpbarbados.org and you will see that your party is so comatose that it has not changes its site since January and its content is 5 months dated.

    Coitus Interuptus Cadogan, until that site is changed and its webmaster Ronald Jones awakens from his stupor i vote that you be banned from BU.

    You just sent me back 76 years to my grandmother telling her grans the fairy tale of Rip Van Winkle and him sleeping for 100 years.

    Leave David Goliath alone, your own substandard DLP site shows all of Barbados how, to be a DLP supporter requires that you have to have the RVW – Rip Van Winkle syndrome

    No wonder your noble leader Fumble does daon say nuffin bout nuffin, he sleeping at the economic wheel.

    I getting RPB compose a song bout all unna RVW’s fuh cropover later dis year.

    Yeah Baffy i get a pieceuhjob writing ting fuh Laff It Off en Cropover, wuhloss dere i gone en put me foot in me mouf, dat pic at NCF gine now get cancel


  38. @Hants
    Why shouldn’t a leader of a foreign- government; own shares in private business in Barbados? Let me remind you that the western- hemisphere for the most part, adheres to the democratic- ideals. The principles of Private- enterprise/ laissez- Faire are the doctrines that entitle the foreign governments to invest in Barbados.

  39. Prodigal Son Avatar

    CCC
    I loathe to respond to anything you write.

    You really think we Barbadians have short memories? Everybody can remember the attack on Carol Martindale by Hartley Henry and his threat to expose her.

    One year after the DLP’s win in 2008, a poll was done and HH wanted it to be front page on the Sunday Sun. When she said that he could not decide what goes on their front page, he threatened to expose her. The PM backed HH, HH took the story to the Advocate, HH then took to BU and BFP and wrote horrible things about CM. The Nation did a front page editorial on the bullying of HH and reported the matter to an international agency.

    You are a real a….hole!


  40. The biggest irony is that we have been calling for transparency legislation BUT the Companies Act which models many others worldwide provides the opportunity for capital to lurk anonymously in the shadows. All in the name of commerce.


  41. Read sections 170 & 175 of the Companies Act and see if they can be of assistance in this matter?


  42. AC…………….if no laws are broken what is there to hide??, if no government ministers are involved who you say are responsible for making laws they should be more than glad to clarify the issue (NOT BREAKING THEM WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES) or particularly if the government ministers are involved……………the public more than have a right to know about any conflict of interest laws that may have been compromised.

  43. Prodigal Son Avatar

    David

    This is your blog. You afford us the opportunity to share ideas and discuss politics here. The time has long pass for you to continue to allow one Carson C Cadogan to insult you as well as any of us who do not share his DLP view of Barbados. His latest attack on you is beyond the pale.

    He had no attacks on you when prior to 2008, BU was all about David Thompson and the DLP and to get rid of Owen Arthur and the BLP. Now BU is a tool for the BLP. Truth be told, most comments here on BU have only gone anti government because of the shit the DLP is doing and that the DLP will not listen to sound advice. I also believe that most of the commentators on BU are not BLP supporters, they hate the NONSENSE this government is doing and so they speak up and out.

    CCC is disgusting,irritating, obnoxious and a liar. The time has now come for you to ban CCC from this blog! I am sure most will agree with me. Even Mr pieceof the rock. Let CCC go on the out of date dlpbarbados facebook page and it will be all his to do as he will. He cannot be allowed to come into your “house” and treat you like dirt.

    You deserve better.


  44. See part of the problems lay in the age old conundrum, that everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die…….= they spout transparency and integrity legislation ad nauseam, but no one wants to tell the truth or actually legislate and use the laws that will translate into these two phenomenon coming to past, cause most if not all will have to go to prison…………..see, want to go to heaven but don’t want to die.


  45. @Prodigal Son

    A comment is a comment and it should be read for what you can get from it and move on. Members of the BU household do not ascribe any other meanings to comments. We have had to ban a couple commenters over the years only because they were spammers and offensive combined. Recently we removed the ban. Post your comments and leave us to use our judgement, your annoyance is noted :-).


  46. I believe Carson and AC are a little frustrated today after it has been revealed that there is an impending fiscal retrenchment in the form of an internal devaluation as advised by the IMF…………….Carson, AC………..could the two of you enlighten us on what the IMF spokes people told the media??

  47. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    millertheanunnaki | May 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM |
    “Why shouldn’t a leader of a foreign- government; own shares in private business in Barbados?”

    Absolutely nothing wrong with such a decision to invest in a foreign commercial entity provided it is done in an obviously transparent and legal way.
    If pretty boy Skerritt is the beneficial owner of any investment in the Bajan version of CUL then the citizens of both Dominica and Barbados need to know.

    ‘Ladyboy’ Roosevelt is known to be a very intimate bosom buddy of both the deadly ex-King David and Leroy Greenverbs Parris the Patron Saint of Lepers and AIDS Carriers.
    We the citizens and taxpayers of both domiciles want to know if this privately close relationship has also extended to their business dealings and in particular any beneficial financial interests in CUL.
    We want to know if the proposal of sourcing fresh fruits from Dominica for sale in Bajan supermarkets and food shops has been subsumed by financial jiggery-pokery or the CUL operation would be used to import fresh fruits from the Skerritt owned orchards in the land of the mountain chicken.

    Only goes to show you can never trust these black pols of today who see politics as the career path to get rich quick. But you must recognise the big brains behind all these schemes. The one constant factor is Leroy Parris in association with his mentor Duprey who have all of these corrupt politicians in their deep pockets.
    Did you not even stop to wonder why a non-regional brand of food importation business which is a massive consumer of foreign exchange would have been granted such astronomically unusual tax and other concessions by a political party administration eternally indebted to Leroy Parris to over $50 million in campaign contributions thanks to the stupid policyholders with the acronym CLICO IS NOT BIPA?

    One can understand such uniquely generous concessions being granted to net forex earning FDI enterprises but to an importer and distributor of processed GM foods and Chinese made goods not only beggar belief but makes only pure politically corrupt sense where intimately rear intercourse oils the brown-coloured wheels of financial transactions giving meaning to the modern meaning to the term ‘cross-border trading’ within a ‘rear guard’ spirit of CSME.
    Don’t be surprised if the doctor called Shortie Doggie Douglas practising in St. Kitts is also mired up to his stethoscope in similar regional financially faecal corruption.

  48. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ millertheanunnaki | May 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM |
    “millertheanunnaki | May 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM |“Why shouldn’t a leader of a foreign- government; own shares in private business in Barbados?”

    That should read: “@ Paul | May 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM |
    “Why shouldn’t a leader of a foreign- government; own shares in private business in Barbados?”


  49. There is that name THOMPSON again. Who at THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES signed the $3m cheque? The party now start!!


  50. I guess Thompson & Associates was dissolved for a very legal reason………….but from what i have been the lawyers and associates from that firm are very much alive………

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading