Submitted by BWWR
Ontario Superior Court
As promised, I now am able to advise the BU family that yesterday in the costs motion brought against Nelson Barbados Group Limited in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, it was ordered that Nelson pay its costs by 27 August 2008, failing which the action against the defendants bringing the motion (over 50 of them) will stand discharged.
Those defendants bringing the motion include: The Country of Barbados, Prime Minister Thompson, former Prime Minister Arthur, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice, Peter Simmons, Kingsland Estates, Classic, Richard Cox – 58 of the 67 defendants.
I have certain sincere hopes here:
1. That if Nelson Barbados Group Limited does not pay the cost by 27 August, that in discharging the action against the 59 Barbados resident and other affiants who chose to be cross-examined in Barbados, the judge will order that the costs be paid by Mr. K. William “Goat” McKenzie PERSONALLY.
2. That the Law Society of Upper Canada will launch an investigation into the conduct of this case by the Goat and disbar him from the practice of law.
3. That the the Law Society of Upper Canada will, once its investigation is complete, file a complaint with the Barbados Bar Association against Alair Shepherd Q.C. and that this will lead to Her Majesty being advised to cancel his commission as Queens Council and the Barbados Bar to disbar or at least suspend him from the practice of law. This, for not having advised the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that Nelson Barbados Group Limited did not have the standing to bring its action, particularly as he was one of the counsel of record in the matter.
That conduct is simply INEXCUSABLE.
I think that Mr. Shepherd ought to go back to his country of origin – Guyana – where his notion of the practice of law will doubtless be highly praised. I understand that certain countries admire lawyers who are constantly in pursuit of ambulances. They interpret this as being “keen”. Most lawyers by their very nature are always going to be looking for the big fees and will, if the client will pay, bring actions of little merit. However, somewhere, someone HAS to draw the line SOMEWHERE.
When this whole action started, while Madge Knox was not being anonymous and hiding behind the name of Nelson Barbados Group Limited – in October 1998 – Madge was represented by Sir Henry Forde and Alair Shepherd, both Q.Cs. On the other side were the late Sir Harold St. John Q.C., Leslie Haynes Q.C., Clyde Turney Q.C. and Mr Vernon Smith (later Q.C.). This array of the best of Barbados’ legal talent was supported by the best of the younger crop. Adrain King (who is becoming a worthy successor to his father – or will as soon as he finds a different lead counsel) supported Sir Henry and Alair, Doria Moore supported Brie and Leslie, Zerina Khan supported Clyde and Lisa Greaves supported Vernon.
By the time the matter came to appeal, there was only ONE casting change. Sir Henry Forde had dropped out. When Henry was asked by a friend of mine WHY he had dropped out, he hemmed and hawed for a moment to give himself time to think and then said that his involvement was not needed by Madge Knox and that she didn’t need the expense of two Queens Council. However, within the legal world in Barbados, Henry’s colleagues – all of them – were intrpreting this otherwise. One of them summed up for me, “De Boulay knows he ain’t got no case. He don’t want Brie and Leslie and Vernon and specially not Clyde, to beat him up again. Of course, I don’t think he got any time for Peter Allard either.” It didn’t stop Alair from collecting $4.2 million which, by Madge Knox’s own admission, were her legal costs in the matter. See the decision of Goodridge J. posted on BU.
However that may be, as the BU family has discussed conflict of interest by lawyers exhaustively (and well) in the Hal Gollup case, Henry may well have reflected that he was leaving himself and his firm (Juris Chambers) open to an action from the estate of Colin Deane and its executor Ian Deane for conflict of interest. Because you see I have just seen some documents that I am told are filed in the public domain as court exhibits that clearly show that from 1983 until 1986 Henry and his chambers represented the estate of Colin Deane and its executor. Henry did right to withdraw from the matter. In fact, he ought never to have been involved at all – he ought to have declared a conflict of interest right from the start or got a waiver in writing from Colin’s estate and Ian.
And since during the time that Henry represented the estate of Colin Deane, Alair Shepherd was a member of Juris Chambers, neither should Alair have been involved then – OR NOW.
Conflict of Interest rules in Barbados are sketchy. However, it is almost certain that if called upon to decide upon conflict of interest matters, the Barbados courts will do as courts in other countries in the same boat have done and adopt the three world-recognized authorities: 1. The Canadian case of R. v Neil, the UK case of Marks and Spencers v Freshfields and the 2003 American Bar Association Model Rules on Conflict of Interest. To do otherwise would negatively impact on Barbados as a front-line country in the foreign investment field. I have just checked and I see that the cases and rules are available on the internet, with the cases being found either through google (or BFP’s favourite, cuil) or you ought to be able to find them on www.worldlii.org . Wordlii.org is free, but for those who subscribe to Westlaw, you will certainly find them there.
This whole thing started 10 years ago and has now, by my estimation, has cost in the region of $20 million. It is true that quite a bit of the expense has been due to the inordinate and inexcusable length of time that the Barbados judiciary has taken to un-reserve and deliver its decisions. Greenidge J. took a year and a half at first instance (at a cost in interest to Kingsland of an estimated $2 million), while Chase A.J. took 9 months to deliver the decision of the Court of Appeal on Madge Knox’s appeal from Greenidge J.’s decision – the period of human gestation and Chase A.J. have a lot in common as anyone who examines the time he took for his decisions generally will see. This delay by the Barbados judiciary in giving decisions and the justice denied thereby as well as the inordinate expense caused, contrast most unfavourably with the Privy Council, that took less than three months and now the Canadian courts, which have, to date, taken less than 6 weeks. If yesterday’s motion had been heard in Barbados, I can assure you that no judgment would yet be forthcoming. Yet the Canadian judge delivered it from the bench and, while I have not seen the written reasons, I (who don’t bet) will take a bet that there are no viable grounds for appeal in it.
The Barbados judges have a lot of arguments to support their sloath. But the truth is that there ARE no excuses. Every lawyer in Barbados is an officer of the Courts. Judges have the right to consult with any of those lawyers not involved in a case. For instance, both Greenidge J. and Chase A.J. had the right to consult (when he was alive) the late Freddie Clarke, the acknowledged leading expert in Barbados on company law. It is not a question of some poor little judge sitting there struggling through mounds of documents and law books. The problem in my view has been laziness and arrogance. Denys did his best to reverse this trend and, for all his faults and nepotism, our present CJ has done an exemplary job in addressing the problem – BUT THERE IS A LONG WAY TO GO STILL.
For instance, you could take the alleged $2 million that Greenidge J’ delay cost Kingsland and hire four top lawyers as judges, instead of the also-rans who are chauffered around in MP-reg cars by police drivers. You could also sweeten the pot (and pay them less money) by making it a condition of employment as a judge that each be knighted or made a dame immediately upon being appointed. And if you all don’t think that Mrs. Lawyer or Mr. Lawyer isn’t going to move Heaven and Earth to become Lady Judge or the husband of Dame Judge, you are WRONG. AND you could go to the magistrates courts every so often (and sit quietly at the back, like I do) and you might find, if you are VERY lucky, a magistrate who shows all the signs of becoming a first class judge. Being a woman, of course, I am prejudice, but I most sincerely hope I live to see the day when Dame Pamela Beckles is inducted Chief Justice of Barbados.
Related Links
72 responses so far ↓
Bush tea // August 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Bush tea has never liked Lawyers, will never respect them and could never trust one…
What I find fascinating about this whole matter (which I confess that I DO NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND) is than NO ONE has as yet dealt with the simple question that I would like to get answered….
DID THIS PROPERTY REALLY BELONG TO THIS FAMILY AND HAS IT REALLY BEEN EFFECTIVELY TAKEN AWAY OVER THE YEARS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND WITHOUT FAIR COMPENSATION?
I am not really interested in the legal games through which lawyers do their scavenging. BWWR has been brilliantly articulate in representing these legal machinations… but simple minded Bush tea only want to know…
DID THEY REALLY THIEF THE WOMAN PROPERTY?
David // August 9, 2008 at 9:54 AM
@Bush tea
A valid question and let us go further. If it is that the land was lifted from the old lady why is it that a team of high powered lawyers with deep pockets for clients were not able to arrive at justice for the old lady?
Sargeant // August 9, 2008 at 10:15 AM
@BT
You couldn’t have said it better. Now we await the answer
BWWR // August 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Bush Tea asks the question: Did Madge Knox have her land stolen on her?
Simple answer. NO! She never owned any of the land for anyone to teef. If you don’t own it, no body can teef it.
What Madge Knox has is 28,570 shares in the company that owns the land. You will note that I said “has” and not “had”. No body has teefed her shares. She still OWNS them. Indeed, I understand that since Classic took over the balance of the 300,000 shares in Kingsland and the running of Kingsland, the value of those shares has risen greatly, due to proper management at board of directors level.
And Madge is in no position to complain about what the board of directors did to devalue the company prior to its ceasing operation in 1994 – because she herself was a member of that board and had been for 9 years by that time – more than sufficient time to either reverse the decline (as the new directors reportedly have done) or to resign from the board and take them to court. However, by her failure to resign and take them to court, any reasonably human being has to assume that she agreed with the board in its management.
So, in answer to your question, Bush Tea, no one has teefed ANYTHING from Madge Knox.
Why then is she complaining? Simple answer there as well:
1. The other shareholders wanted to sell their shares.
2. They all, including Madge, got an offer from Classic to buy those shares which they, except Madge and one other who latyer agreed as well, wanted to accept.
3. Madge did not want to accept Classic’s offer.
4. Before selling to Classic, the other shareholders asked Madge if she wanted to buy their shares on the same basis as Classic had offered, before they agreed to sell those shares to Classic.
5. Madge wrote a letter in reply that constituted a refusal of the offer, so the other shareholders agreed to sell to Classic.
6. One day after the others had agreed to sell to Classic, Peter Allard made an offer to refinance Kingsland which, in the circumstances, was rejected.
7. Almost a year later and having rejected the offer to sell her their shares, Madge (by now financed by Peter Allard) decided that she DID want to buy the shares. However, while Classic had offered aout $40 per share and had an enforceable agreement, Madge declared that she had a right to buy the shares for $3.60 per share.
8. Later, Madge did meet the Classic offer, but nearly a year too late and even if they others had wanted to sell Madge her shares, they could not have done so any longer, because they were legally committed to sell them to Classic. So Madge filed an action to force the shareholders to set aside their agreement with Classic and sell to her/Peter Allard.
9. This action was finally decided by the Privy Council and the decision was against Madge/Peter Allard.
So, just to repeat, no one has taken Madge’s land, because she didn’t own any – and no one as taken her shares in the company that owns that land – yet. However, that may well happen as Madge has not paid the legal costs she owes to the people she has sued and lost to.
I hope this clarifies it all.
Amused // August 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
@BT
If she had lost her property without compensation do you think she would have lost her case in the privy council?
Adrian Loveridge // August 9, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Just remind me who the directors of Classic are and also remind me who was a previous or current chairman?
‘due to proper management at board of directors level’*
*Does this also apply to Hotels and Resorts Ltd?
Anon 3 // August 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Mr. Loveridge,
I am confused. I personally know who the directors of Kingsland were prior to the Classic take-over. I knew them all personally. I also know that, apart from Erie Deane, there is a new board, but I don’t know who the rest are.
Having read the Reasons of Shaughnessy J. and the decision on appeal of those reasons of Howden J., both of which feature you heavily, not to mention your starring role in affidavits of John Knox that I have now been able to read courtsey of BU and BWWR, it seems to me that you are extremely well placed to get these answers yourself from Mr. Allard, Mr. McKenzie or Mr. Knox – and, unless his self-professed fear for his safety in Barbados has drven him out of Barbados, Mr. Knox is merely a local call away from you. So, why don’t you find out and enlighten us?
As for the comment about Hotels and Resorts Ltd., I have no idea of what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make. Does Kingsland share a director with Hotels and Resorts or does one own stock in the other? Will someone please enlighten me.
politically incorrect // August 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Really can’t comment on the case in point. Very complex.
I can however tell you that I hired Alair Shepherd as my lawyer in the early 90’s when I was young and easily fooled.
I paid him thousands of dollars. He took my case willingly. This was a clear cut divorce case with no children involved.
This “lawyer” was obviously “bought” out by my ex-husband’s lawyer, another eminent QC in Barbados. A long story that I don’t care to go into in this forum.
I ended up with a settlement of 12% when the Family Law of Barbados states a 50/50 split in the case of a dissolution of the marriage . A marriage in which I had supported my ex-husband for years. A marriage that had lasted 13 years.
Out of the $30,000 BDS I received (the 12% settlement) Alair Shepherd was paid $6,000.
He committed to obtain the Decree Nisi within a year as required by the law. When the year elapsed I was out of the country. I made several long distance calls he flat down refused to do what he had been paid to do. I had to re-hire a lawyer in the country of my then residence.
For people such as myself, unable to defend themselves due to lack of money and CONNECTIONS ……..this is what the Barbados legal system promises to offer.
Bush tea // August 9, 2008 at 1:45 PM
BWWR
Thanks you for you usually lucid and extremely well reasoned response. It is certainly enlightening.
Remember however my simple minded approach to such matters (I drive my lawyer friends mad…) and tell me where my assessment of what you said is wrong….
Some 70 or so years ago, an enterprising Bajan invested in some land and prospered, ending up with significant holdings.
This property was held within the family circle, however as the business oriented family members died the property fell into disrepair and some Directors, including the complainant showed little interest in the affairs.
Some outside interests offered to purchase the property and this was accepted by all but the complainant, who apparently felt that their share was worth much more than offered.
The others sold, after offering their shares to the complainant (who obviously could not afford to buy them based on the conditions under which she lived)
Subsequently, another speculator offered to finance the complainant’s purchase of the shares.
HOWEVER, you say that having missed some ‘deadline’, this arrangement was now no longer possible…and that the court has ruled to this effect.
It appears to simple minded Bush tea that two different sets of ‘vultures’ are engaged in a fight to gain control of this ladies’ assets and that, in the process the weapon of ‘legal fees’ and complex court process’ is being used to penalize her for trying to protect her rightful interest.
If I was a judge in this case, I would award costs equally between Allard and Classic; Have an independent valuation of the property done and pay the complainant for her shares at the rate determined; Then I would reprimand and fine all the lawyers involved for milking this situation as they have done.( don’t worry, I will NEVER be a judge…LOL)
The frightening thing is that this is unique only in that the complainant has been able to push the matter publicly for so long. This is actually STANDARD practice by lawyers in this country (and others) and the end result is usually rich lawyers and ‘unfaired’ citizens.
I do not blame Knots for trying to get justice elsewhere either- however short sighted it turns out to have been..
Sounds to Bush tea like the classic case of let’s rob the weak widow…
- Which judge in this place has the balls to focus on JUSTICE rather that the often stupid law and court process….. or on who is his lodge brother…
…and BWWR, things in Bim are so much NOT what they seem that….
I do not think that you are a woman, or even that you are black…. and I suspect that you may write much more than you read too….
one who knows // August 9, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Shell company upon shell company. No audited statements produced for more than a decade. No records of which directors sold which pieces of land when or where the money went, and a trusting old lady who believed that her family members were looking after her affairs and that Kingsland Estates was bankrupt anyway: because that is what she was told.
Old women who own valuable land are easy pickings for Barbados lawyers and politicians and there are many big name politicians and lawyers involved in this one.
This isn’t over. It hasn’t even begun. The lawyers for the guilty have been use every tactic so it never come to court.
That is right. This has NEVER been brought before a court for a trial.
All of the times it has been before a court in Barbados, England and Canada was all about legal side issues: who has the right to do this, say this, produce this document, demand that form. The main issues have never been heard before a court anywhere because the lawyers on the other side of the old lady are very good at lawyering. Corrupt, but very good lawyers.
Anon27 // August 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Thank You, One Who Knows……finally someone who can see thru all the smoke and mirrors thrown up by not only lawyers but BWWR as well.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 9, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I know many decent individuals who are lawyers, but the legal profession, especially in Barbados, borders on disgraceful.
BWWR are you proud of your profession and the quality of service and contribution it is making to Barbados?
What would you consider the fair value of the Knox’s share in Kingsland Estate to be, both at the time of the ‘deal’ with Classic and today? How does this compare with what she was being offered?
Who are the directors of Classic?
Bush tea // August 9, 2008 at 3:51 PM
MME
What Classic what!?!
The local company’s act is the ultimate scam designed to facilitate the kind of schemes that has become the norm since its enactment.
This act allows the creation of entities that hide the real operatives behind schemes, that frustrates openness and transparency and encourages insider trading.
I understand that it is not even a legal requirement that the OWNERS (shareholders) of a company be named. Even if we know the directors this does not say much, since these be just be fromt men created to mask the REAL shareholders.
…but I may be wrong, Bush tea aint no lawyer (thank you BBE…)
Adrian Loveridge // August 9, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Anyone with $5 can check on Barbados registered companies at the CAIPO office.
Classic Investments Ltd
# 11693
Registered 29 January 1996
Kingsland Estates Inc.
#1654
Registered 1 July 1958
According to CAIPO records no company called Nelson Barbados Group Ltd is registetred but some 11 company names that are start with NELSON………
David // August 9, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Why after so many blogs and comments we are asking who are the directors? Can’t somebody just type the names? What is there to hide?
Micro Mock Engineer // August 9, 2008 at 4:01 PM
… when considering the fair value question, bear in mind that after purchasing the shares for $3.60, less than a year later Classic was offering it to Knox at $40.00… now dat is what I call a “reverse in decline” of property value… after a couple months… dat is a Classic LOL
… so, a day before Knox had the money required to make the purchase, the other directors unknown to her signed an agreement to sell to Classic… one DAY before? LOL… dat is another Classic
“they, except Madge and one other who latyer agreed as well, wanted to accept”… BWWR, could you clarify this? Cuz it sound like another Classic LOL
Micro Mock Engineer // August 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM
… anyone ever see that reality show The Mole? Maybe they should run a reenactment of the Kingsland Estates saga. At the end, viewers could vote for a Board member.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 9, 2008 at 4:30 PM
BWWR… are you The Mole?… LOL
David // August 9, 2008 at 4:37 PM
@BWWR
Like Bush tea wrote earlier we admire the articulate way in which you have cushioned this issue for the BU family to digest. We truly appreciate it. However we think that there is a lot you may not be telling. There is something missing which we can’t quite articulate…lol, but you may know what we mean. The woman was knocked out time and time again but like a bulldog she kept coming and coming. Why after all this time many are starting to feel that this woman has been taken to the cleaners by the sharks?
BWWR step away from your legalese and give us your layman view we would appreciate it.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
“they, except Madge and one other who latyer agreed as well, wanted to accept”… BWWR, could you clarify this? Cuz it sound like another Classic LOL
Some clarification is required… did BWWR mean to say “later” or “lawyer”? Freudian slip?
It is not unheard of for clients to be taken to the cleaner on the advice of their “latyer”… LOL
Sargeant // August 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Ever wonder how the same name(s) crop up with respect to controversial land deals? Didn’t David Shorey’s name come up with that other land deal in the Holder’s hill area, the land that was acquired from the poor farmer and eventually sold to Sandy Lane. Wasn’t the former PM also responsible tor Town Planning?
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Bush tea // August 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Sargeant
You may be surprised how many places David Shorey’s name comes up…
Now that I know that David S is involved I need hear no more…..
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // August 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Sargeant, I think we should put out a bulletin for your friend. No one seems to see or hear him. Did you shut him up or is he strategically coming to oust you from your guise that failed to change things for the better. All I am hearing is how bad things getting since the 15th of January. Please, I beg you Sargeant, find your friend for us, he may have some answers.
Someone said the 'BLP Stalwart' // August 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Sargeant, seems like I have no choice but to join you although the rationale may be entirely different. No, I am not tempted to be slanderous like you nor do I wish to play in your orchestra. I just hope someone can find George for me. We need him so that people like you will have less to say and more to investigate. Are you not tired with the fiasco? I wonder what Harley thinks of you, after all I understand he is the one calling all the shots. Well most of the shots. George did not tell me, but I hope he can confirm it — there is trouble in the DLP camp over the lies that were recently exposed in relation to the hospital. You know anything about it Sargeant? I beg you, shake George from his hiding place, we need him, Barbadians need him, and more than likely you will need him to pacify your tormented soul.
Bush tea // August 9, 2008 at 11:06 PM
…so wait David,
You get very dread!
You mean to say that you gone and ban BWWR from your blog?
She is uncharacteristically quiet now that there are so many questions o be answered. You sure that BWWR is not Mr Worme from BL&P?
Amused // August 9, 2008 at 11:21 PM
“Why after all this time many are starting to feel that this woman has been taken to the cleaners by the sharks?”
—————–
I have sympathy for Mrs Knox
Her family made a stupid deal which looks even more stupid as land values rise.
The buyers classic are indeed a nasty bunch of “sharks”
Worse for her, she is now a minority shareholder with them and no doubt they do everything to screw her
However, the law does not prevent you doing a bad deal of your own free will and that is what her family did. That is basically why she lost right up to the privy council.
This canadian case though is a pathetic attempt by Allard to harass people he thinks have wronged him and so he is backing Knox (I would not be surprised if he was shafted by classic at some point).
They tried to make up that they were threatened so the Canadian court would order the defendants to Canada because Barbados was “unsafe”
Just plain lies and and of course happily spread by Allard/Loveridge/BFP.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the Mckensie legal team would be “in danger” in Barbados and even more ridiculous to suggest than somehow they got John Knox fired.
Anyone actually read his affidavit? do you think anyone really feared that rambling bit of nonsense?
Amused // August 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Not only did the Canadian court not find any threats they accused the plaintiffs of actually going on a “fishing expedition” when calling Simmons from Allards home !!!!!!!!! (and of course they just happened to record the call)
BWWR // August 10, 2008 at 4:15 AM
Bush Tea – Your reasoning is too complex for me. I refer to your post at August 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm. I always believed that the value of anything is what someone is prepared to pay for it. If I offer you $1,000 for your car and you refuse me, end of story. If you accept and I pay you a deposit, then if you change your mind, I can force you to sell. Madge Knox was offered what the prospective purchaser was prepared to pay. She refused. End of story. She keeps her shares. Done.
one who knows // August 9, 2008 at 2:35 pm – you say: “Old women who own valuable land….” . As I pointed out, Madge Knox did not and does not and never has owned the land. Therefore, as your premise is not correct, I cannot help you.
Bush tea // August 9, 2008 at 3:51 pm – the Barbados Companies Act, which took effect in 1986, is taken DIRECTLY from the Canadian Act of 1975. How interesting that Canada has been chosen as the forum to try to retry this case. How interesting that it doesn’t seem to get off the ground there. Wonder why. You then say: “I understand that it is not even a legal requirement that the OWNERS (shareholders) of a company be named. Even if we know the directors this does not say much, since these be just be fromt men created to mask the REAL shareholders.” CORRECT. The same as the Companies Acts of practically every country in the World now. Certainly the same as all the countries in our area that are competing with us for off-shore business. More on that in my reply to Mr. Loveridge.
Adrian Loveridge // August 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm. Thank you for that misleading piece of information. Very revealing of you. Why do I expect no better from you? Of course you will not find Nelson Barbados Group Limited listed among the Barbados companies. So, everyone, keep your $5 in your pockets. Let me help you out. Nelson Barbados Group Ltd. was formed, according to PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES COMPANIES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY BRANCH on November 15th, 2005. In ONTARIO, Mr. Loveridge, not BARBADOS – but you knew that. And do you know something else, Bush Tea, the names of the shareholders are NOT LISTED. All we get is the name of its ONLY director, Mr. DONALD BEST. And something else. Mr. Best gives as his address 40 Coldwater Street East, Orilla, Ontario, Canada L3V 8K4 – an address very familiar to Mr. Loveridge as it is that of his good friend Goat McKenzie. Hmmmmm, as BFP would say. 2086451 is Nelson’s company number. Mr. Best, by the way, is a resident Canadian. Do any of you know Donald Best? I don’t. I am sure you can assist us, Mr. Loveridge. Do a little fishing. Telephone Mr. Allard and the Goat and discuss something close to all your hearts – surfing, not Graeme Hall – and then reel them in for us. Think of Heaslet. You are our Fish now. Show us what you can do. Tourism Authority, I think we have another “Professor Knox on out hands here.
Micro Mock Engineer – chile, re-read everything then comment. You starting to sound like a certain former low-level lecturer at a W.I. university who was terminated for cause, and I am sure that is not that case – avoid the connection. Read and then get back.
David – away from legalese. Madge Knox, as a director of Kingsland from when it was a going and financially profitable concern in 1985 until it ceased operation in 1994, is responsible along with the rest of the board of directors for the decline in Kingsland’s viability. Madge Knox did not cease to be a director until 1995. The Deane family (which includes Madge Knox) had been trying since the late 80s to sell their respective interests in Kingsland. That is why ALL the shareholders, including Madge Knox, agreed to sell their shares to SBG. With SBG, each shareholder would get $1,000,000. The agreement with SBG was signed by the shareholders, including Madge Knox, and is dated January 1992. When this sale failed, it was generally known that Kingsland’s shares were up for grabs. Everybody knew it. However, what very few people were able to predict was that Barbados property prices would rise quite so dramatically and that this would render Kingsland cash bankrupt (with the debt to Barbados Agricultural Credit Trust alone at in excess of $11 million and rising since Kingsland could not afford to pay the interest and there were, as I recall, foreclosure actions already filed in the Courts) but asset rich. Classic DID identify this opportunity and moved to capitalize on it. Peter Allard too identified the opportunity, but did not move until after Classic had already got an agreement and paid a deposit – therefore, he was out of luck. By the way, I note that in December 1997, Allard himself considered that 28,570 shares in Kingsland were worth $1 million only. Allard had the opportunity of acquiring at that time almost 30% of the Kingsland shares, by the simple method of making an offer to the two dissenting shareholders. Instead, he chose to enlist one of those shareholders as a front to try to hijack Classic’s purchase. It didn’t work. Is Classic a shark? Yes. But frankly if I am investing in a company myself, I want to know that I will make money. Is Allard a shark? Well, I leave that for you to decide on. And remember, a shark is a fish. I hope this answers your question.
I apologize for the delay in replying to all your questions. I had a few family matters to attend to and, I also had to e-mail a few contacts to find out the answers to some of the questions, most notably, David’s. The legality of the situation is very clear to me, so I am setting that aside….. What everyone forgets is the changing economic climate over the last 16 years. Since about 2000, land prices in Barbados have increased on average about 35% per annum. This was not the case in 1992, when the sale of Kingsland to SBG was contemplated. It ought also to be noted that in 1992, SBG also contracted to purchase the shares and/or land of Staple Grove Estates Limited and of Ridge Limited – for essentially SUBSTANTIALLY LESS than they agreed to pay for Kingsland. All sugar-related companies were in a bad way. Later, there was (in 1995, I understand) another purchaser with which all the Kingsland shareholders, including Madge Knox – as well as Ridge Limited (ruled over by BS&T head at the time, David Bynoe, Ernest Hunt and Joey Armstrong Q.C.) and Staple Grove Estates (ruled by Lionel and Brian Ward), agreed to sell their interests to – for essentially the same amount as Kingsland. Two years later, there was Classic.
So to recap:
1992 – Kingsland, Staple Grove and Ridge. And Madge Knox agrees.
1995 – Kingsland, Staple Grove and Ridge. And Madge Knox agrees.
1997 – Kingsland. And Madge Knox disagrees.
So what is the missing element. I say it is Peter Allard identifying the opportunity, but just missing the boat, followed by an ill-judged and badly executed attempt to get on board and excessive sour grapes and spite when he couldn’t manage it. What do you say?
Adrian Loveridge // August 10, 2008 at 4:18 AM
Amused…
EXACTLY which lies have I spread?
Now tell us the TRUTH about Mr David Shorey’s involvement.
Also WHY was he sacked as Chairman of Caribbean Commercial Bank?
Why was he allowed to remain Chairman of Hotels and Resorts Ltd despite accumulating a quoted debt of $200 million and leaving tens of millions of unpaid interest?
Where did the proceeds of the sale of Eastry House and Silver Rock hotel go?
Name EVERY single company/entity that Mr Shorey has been associated with and what is their status now?
‘Spread’ing lies.
Come on Amused, WHY don’t you spread the TRUTH?
Or Amused, are you really the same person that sent all the death threats and using the computer in Parliament again?
Adrian Loveridge // August 10, 2008 at 4:40 AM
Amused…
Exactly which lies am I ’spread’ ing?
Just tell us the names of the Directors and people can drawn their own conclusions.
Tell us also WHY Mr David Shorey was sacked as Chairman of Caribbean Commercial Bank?
And WHY he remained Chairman of Hotels and Resorts Ltd despite accumulating over $200 million in debt and tens of millions of dollars in unpaid interest?
Explain exactly WHERE the proceeds of the sale of Eastry House and Silver Rock have gone?
Explain WHY the taxpayer have not seen audited accounts of Hotels and Resorts Ltd when Mr Shorey was chairman, since 2001?
And name every single company/entity that Mr Shorey has been associated with as director or chairman and what is their status now?
Amused…
How about ’spread’ ing the truth for a change?
Or are you using the same computer in Parliament that has sent all the death, arson and rape threats?
BWWR // August 10, 2008 at 4:46 AM
I am going on vacation soon and so don’t have as much time as usual.
However, because of the interest shown by the BU family, I will advise BU and David the moment I find out what happens on August 27. I notice that neither Keltruth nor BFP has publicized either the bringing of the motion for costs or the results of it – and I think we can all agree that they BOTH knew of it. Clearly if anyone wants hard news on what is happening on this issue, this is the place to be – and be not mistaken, I will report exactly what happens regardless of who is advantaged by it as soon as I find out about it. This is the only way that the Court of Public Opinion can be effective.
Subjective and selective reporting like the Advocate and Nation and VOB doesn’t do anyone any favours and, in fact, it insults our intelligence and humanity and right to objectively form our own opinions on matters concerning our country and community. In a nutshell, it is extremely disrespectful to us all.
Adrian Loveridge // August 10, 2008 at 6:12 AM
BWWR,
‘misleading piece of information’
Actually, I think this could be applied to you!
‘due to the proper management at board level’
You stated this about Classic Investments but refuse to admit who the Directors are/were and likewise the former or curent Chairman.
Who is ‘misleading’ who?
Explain to the taxpaying Barbadians why Classic can be so well run, but Hotels and Resorts Ltd can loose over $200 million?
And what about ALL the other companies that director has been associated with?
Did I ask before, why was he sacked as Chairman of Caribbean Commercial Bank?
Was it due to ‘proper management at board level’?
BWWR // August 10, 2008 at 6:40 AM
Mr. Loveridge, why do you not name the members of this board of directors you are harping on about? You have some point to make that frankly escapes me. Make it and stop asking questions to which you clearly already know the answer.
As for this connection between Hotels and Resorts and this issue, I don’t know what it is. What has Classic got to do with Hotels and Resorts? Please enlighten us all. Name names, sir. And when you have done that, make your point.
NEXT: Which director, Mr. Loveridge, do you refer to? Please name him/her so that we all know just what point you are making and what you are talking about.
By the way, Mr. Loveridge, are we to assume that you are going to assist us by checking with your friends and doing a little fishing??!! Ah well, it was worth a try.
Tourism Authority….better you and me.
Anon 3 // August 10, 2008 at 7:09 AM
I have just read Mr. Loveridge’s attack on Amused.
Mr. Loveridge, we got in Barbados an institution that we Bajans affectionately call “Jenkins”. You would know it as the Psychiatric Hospital. They will be able to provide you with help and some appropriate meds, if you don’t already have these.
David (Shorey) was once, as I have reason to know, employed as a facilitator by Classic. He was never a shareholder or director of Classic – as you have reason to know. Apart from that and for the last many years, I can see no involvement of David of ANY KIND with Kingland or Classic and I can see no connection between those two and Hotels and Resorts Ltd., which I understand to be a government-owned entity. My reserach shows that both Kingsland and Classic are not government-owned or affiliated.
Now, if you have any proof to the contrary, please post it here so that we can all make a big stink and at the same time give your close friend, Mr. Allard, the one missing item he needed to turn this into a bi-lateral trade agreement matter. Otherwise, no amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to turn this into other than what it is – sour graps and a spoiled Canadian brat.
no name // August 10, 2008 at 7:55 AM
Was Kingsland one of those interesting companies with 2 Boards of Directors, one for making money and one for losing it?
Adrian Loveridge // August 10, 2008 at 7:58 AM
12 November 2007
‘Classic – The unknown entity’
’signed conditional contracts with Classic Investments Ltd whose principals include DAVID SHOREY of the controversial GEMS Hotels and Resorts Ltd’
Are you then stating this verbatim quote is not true?
Are you stating that David Shorey is not or never has been a director of Classic Investments Ltd?
David // August 10, 2008 at 8:17 AM
@BWWR
We have to say that there is never a dull moment with your participation. It is unfortunate that now this matter is heating up you are about to go on vacation!
Could you comment on this article which was penned by Patrick Hoyos of the Broad Street Journal? He clearly fingers Shorey as being a principal of Classic Investment.
Adrian Loveridge // August 10, 2008 at 8:23 AM
David,
add to that…
15th July 2005
Broad Street Journal
‘Classic now part of the Kingsland shareholding family’
‘Classic is now, at least in terms of shareholding, part of the Kingsland family. The company, in which Richard Cox and David Shorey are principals’.
Patrick Hoyos.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 10, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Tanty BWWR, old girl, yuh answer that fair value question like a true shark. You really beginning to sound like The Mole yuh… Enjoy your vacation, and may you live in interesting times.
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 8:36 AM
BWWR
When I grow up, I want to be as good as you are!! If you are not now, then you should be in the PR business.
Now I understand all that you have said so far, however you seem unwilling or unable to deal with my simple minded concerns – remember, Bush tea has an inherent distrust of lawyers -so I tend to focus on SIMPLE points.
This old Lady, owned shares in the company that owned this extensive property. (somehow you get that to mean that she was NOT an owner of the property, but hey…)
She is and old Lady who trusted others to look after her interest.
They were interested in selling and an ‘offer’ was made. Now let us look at this from the lady’s perspective-
After having this ‘offer’ made, another offer was put on the table. What law is this old lady breaking by seeking to leverage these two competing bids?
You on the other hand, seems to be using legalize to suggest, in the final analysis, that since Classic offered first, this lady MUST sell to Classic or you and your legal network will make sure that she dies a pauper.
Mistress, if Bush tea was selling a banana -and after the first offer of 10 cents, another bidder came along with 12 cents – the ten cents man has to buzz off… but then again Bush tea is no little old lady…
WHAT HAS THE LADY DONE OTHER THAN TO SEEK TO MAXIMIZE HER ASSETS?
What gives Classic the right to get this property at anything but the true market price (as determined by bidding against any other interest) ?
It should be clear that Bush tea is not impressed with the legal chatter. I have too many lawyer friends to be impressed…
You would need to show why this lady should be forced by your legal gang, to spend all her assets on legal fees just in seeking to protect and maximize the value of her assets.
…seems to me that anyone that you and your legal gang targets is fair game, should you decide to make them an ‘offer that they cannot refuse’
… the only difference between your gang and the mafia is that your weapon of choice is the court system and your legal brilliance..
…not a bad PR job either.
Waterboy // August 10, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Anon 3
“David (Shorey) was once, as I have reason to know, employed as a facilitator by Classic”
———————————————————
Seems that he was quite the “facilitator”.
Micro Mock Engineer // August 10, 2008 at 8:55 AM
… all this shark talk got me thinking bout JAWS… I done wid dis thread bosie.
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Mention Loveridge’s name and he worries you are someone out to kill him.
I suggest you see a medical practitioner you do not want this paranoia to get out of hand.
I have no idea who Mr Shorey is so I cant answer the questions about him but I thought we talking about Kingland and a case in Canada.
If he is a director of classic well read my comments and you can see what I think about classic.
I know of some of the people in classic and they are ’sharks’, if he is director you would have no trouble convincing me he is one too.
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Just so I dont accuse you wrongfully of spreading lies, can you tell us ;
- do you believe that Peter simmons threatened to harm/kill Mckensie and/or his legal team
- do you believe that simmons had John Knox fired because he was a “witness’ in the canadian case
- do you believe the people out to kill you are one and the same which is why your name features in the affidavits
BWWR // August 10, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Bush Tea, as you say, you don’t like lawyers. Does this also mean that you don’t like the law? If you own shares in, let us say, Brydens, that does not mean that you own the property that Bryden’s owns. It means that the board of directors is appointed by a majority of the shareholders to deal with the assets of Brydens. Your job is to vote for (or stand for election to) that board of directors in accordance with the number of shares you own. It is a simple democratic process. You with me? And, if you are, then the rest of my copious answers will make sense to you. If not, well there isn’t anything any of us can do to help you.
Don’t worry, David. I will be keeping tabs and will report the moment I hear the news on 27th. I suspect things are hotting up because you posted the latest news, instead of a re-hash of old comments. I would say that you ’scooped’ them, but as BFP and Keltruth clearly had no intention of reporting what happened, ’scoop’ is not really correct.
As for Pat Hoyos, well, if Pat had examined the private corporate records of Classic where its shareholders were named (they were provided at Madge Knox’s request for discovery) you would see that David Shorey is not a shareholder. And we know that he is not a director. So, Mr. Loveridge, if you have evidence to show that Shorey ever was a director, please produce it and I will stand corrected.
You see, I have no problems admitting when I am wrong or mistaken. I can face these things and take my licks like a big woman. I can also pay my costs and the costs of my opponent if I am wrong in court as well – and I do not need to fraudulently try to hide or dispose of my assets in order to defraud my creditors. I also am prepared to accept when a judge (or the Privy Council) tells me I am wrong and I do not feel I (or anyone) have the right to go behind that decision and try to get a court, Canadian or otherwise, of incompetent jurisdiction to try to overset a final appeal.
Anon 3 // August 10, 2008 at 1:37 PM
So far as I know, David Shorey was never either a shareholder or director of Classic. Therefore, unless Mr. Loveridge can prove otherwise, I say Mr. Hoyos is wrong, which is by no means unknown.
Waterboy, YES, I do have reason to know. So what?
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM
“if Bush tea was selling a banana -and after the first offer of 10 cents, another bidder came along with 12 cents – the ten cents man has to buzz off”
@BT,
If the 10 cents man has a contract with you then you cant tell him to buzz off. Thats the law of contract
Likewise, if the 10 cents man started to claim the market has fallen and he is now is only willing to pay you 8 cents, you can enforce the sale (or be compensated).
They key word is offer. Once you an accept an offer you have a contract and with that goes obligations.
If Allard came came after the contract with classic was done (as long as it was a valid contract) it does not matter what he offers.
You are will justified in not trusting lawyers but BWWR main point is that mistrust does not have to extend to the law itself.
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM
BWWR
Thanks for the explanation. I still have a little problem; you see, I have some shares in an insurance company. I have no doubt that I do NOT own anything but some shares in that organisation.
On the other hand, I also have 1/5 ownership of shares in a family business. Again I have NO DOUBT that I, Bush tea owns 1/5 of that business (whatever the proper ‘legal’ position is…..)
My point is that a public company (the example that you gave) seems somehow a different situation.
..I still would like to hear what the lady did wrong… Bush tea don’t plan to lose his little ‘pickings’ if it can be avoided…
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 2:37 PM
From the Pat Hoyos, article we see where classic screwed Allard which no doubt set the canadian action off
“The doubling of the price for Spion Kop and Craigwell proved to be the poison pill that led to the break-up of the Allard-Classic alliance. Within two weeks the price for the beachfront property had climbed to $3 million, which Mr. Allard was still willing to pay. But despite a verbal agreement to do so, he noted later, “There were references by David Shorey to David Gittens (Allard’s attorney) that the lands may be worth as high as $5 or $6 million Barbadian dollars.”
Mr. Allard decided to break with Classic and made a counter offer directly to Kingsland’s shareholders, which proved too late.”
sharks everywhere I think
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM
“My point is that a public company (the example that you gave) seems somehow a different situation.”
——————–
It would be because you probably just have a small percentage of the insurance company which would give you a vote
1/5 of a family business would often mean you would be on the board and so your role in the company would be far greater
the ownership of the assets in the same in each case, they are owned by the company
In the case of the family business, if on the board you would obviously have more say in how the assets are managed including their sale
I dont think the lady did anything wrong.
Allard however, funding this action in canada which is nothing more than harassment is another story.
Pat // August 10, 2008 at 3:10 PM
@BWWR
You go girl and have a nice vacation. I still feel that Mrs. Knox could have saved herself and children lots of stress and expense, if she had matched the $40 Classic offered to her brothers, sister and nephew. Instead she offered them a measly $3.60. Then she tried to have the legal Agreement of Purchase and Sale cancelled after the deadline had passed even though she had not offered up her shares.
If she could not afford $40 for all the shares, she could have bought a block and borrowed against them to buy the others.
We used to have a man in our village when I was growing up, who used to go around lending money to people against their land. In sme cases he offered to pay for their funeral in return for the land. These families were poor and all they had was the land that their slave ancestors had gotten by hard work. In those days not many black people appreciated the value of land and many lost it easily. However, what that man did was not illegal. Him, I would not only call a shark, but a Blue Peter. I would prefer to call him the Great White, but the man was blacker than me!
Brutus // August 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
The legal battles are all very interesting, but perhaps we are missing the real issues here.
Firstly, how did a company with so much land come to default on its BACT mortgage and end up in receivership (or on the verge of receivership)? Surely the company owned enough land outright that they could and should have sold some of it to clear the BACT mortgage. Was there gross mismaangement by the directors or was there a conspiracy as Iain Deane suggested?
Secondly, even if the directors and management of the company were not smart enough to sell off land to get out of debt (or if this was not feasible for some strange reason), land was expropriated from the company by government and the compensation from this should have been sufficient to settle the BACT debt. Is it fair to state then that the shareholders were forced to sell at a depressed price because the compensation from government was not paid soon enough to save the company?
If the above is true, then there may be some truth in Nelson’s claim that some of those attempting to buy Kingsland used their influence to delay the payment of government compensation to the company, and would have been in a position to secure change of use permissions from government that would increase the value of the property owned by Kingsland.
Bush Tea, I would suggest that what the old lady could have done differently was to go to court to (1) try and prevent her relatives from selling the shares to Classic on the grounds that it would prejudice her rights as a minority shareholder, and/or (2) sue the directors and management of the company for negligence in mismanaging the affairs of the company and bringing it to such a state and/or (3) sue Classic to try and get fair value for her shares and/or (4) sue the government for failing to pay for the expropriated assets and thereby contributing to the insolvency of the company.
However the old lady decided to join forces with Allard to try and buy the entire company.
Perhaps though the advice from the QC’s representing her was that the options I have listed (and any others) would not have succeeded, and that the best route was to try to buy the entire company.
The message in this is that those who inherit significant assets should from the outset engage professional help to manage those assets and to protect their interests. Surely the situation at Kingsland was allowed to fester for many years before it reached a crisis and fell into the hands of the lawyers.
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Much appreciated Brutus.
This whole situation is actually beginning to make sense to me at last….. all except the Law- I must confess.
To a non legal like myself, the law is intended to protect the safety, property, asses and rights of the citizen. Indeed, one assumes that ‘the Law’ is there to ensure that citizens who do the right things can rest assured that, notwithstanding the laws of the jungle, the ’system’ is there to ensure that the rights, even of poor defenseless widows are protected.
When a Bajan woman can lose her multi million dollar inheritance and no one can point to her breaking any laws, taking any unreasonable actions or really bad business decision – except that she happens NOT to be business orientated (a condition with which successive national leaders and many senior management persons also suffer…) one has to wonder – and to worry.
It appears that the fact that a pack of money grabbing pirates (two packs in this case) developed an interest in her assets was all it took for her to end up a pauper!
SHOULD THE LAW NOT BE PREDISPOSED TO PROTECT THAT LADIES’ RIGHTS?
Pat;
Do you think that a situation such as you described should be legal? Does the ignorant among us not also deserve the protection of the law? What kind of place do we want here?
for example…
My lawyer presently holds the papers to my property – what is to stop him / her from changing the title to his/her name (or more likely to that of a company ultimately under their control) and then putting my loss down to my failure to make sound choices?
….how does one acquire a gun license…?!?
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 6:03 PM
seriously – that should have been ‘protect the ASSETS…’
Straight talk // August 10, 2008 at 6:33 PM
If Classic made a killing, good on them, but if there were never any financials submitted, where is the tax on this phenomenal profit?
Come on lads give a little of your clever gouge back to the country.
Did you?
Answer that BWWR.
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM
“When a Bajan woman can lose her multi million dollar inheritance and no one can point to her breaking any laws”
————
she has not lost it she still has the shares
i think though she may have given them as security to one of the “money grabbing pirates”
in the case of your property, make it sure it is registered.
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM
…legal fees Amused.. She will probably have to sell her house to cover those
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 8:34 PM
yes that is what i meant when i said she gave probably gave security
Allard backing her now will he put up more money on the 27h?
Pat // August 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM
No Bush Tea. It should not be legal to con the poor out of their land. However, the man had IOU’s and the land was the collateral.
It is very little different to a small land owner who rented plots to poor people and then the Owing administration passed the Tenants something or other act, so that people now have to sell at $2. a sq. ft. what they probably purchased for more to renters. I know of two such cases in Barbados where the children now have to look to purchase at $15 per sq. ft., while their father has to sell his at $2.
The only good thing is that if, as BFP says, the land is now worth $1 billion US. Mrs. Knox’s shares should be worth in the neighborhood of $85 million US. If the one billion is a true valuation. I am no lawyer, but I would suggest she cut her losses and try to keep something for herself and her children. They, the children, can decide what is best for her. I dont trust the Allard person. He seems like a great white!
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Sometimes your language, and that of BWWR is confusing….
Is Allard BACKING her? Or is it more correct to say that he is trying to USE her to achieve his ends – having failed to work with Classic?
…however this pans out the lady looses….?!?
So are you saying then, that the ONLY protection for someone like this (or even Bush tea who worked hard for a lifetime an accumulates a few berries…) is to hire professional advise?
…OK that is a trick question. Hiring ‘professional advise’ is like paying your own executioner…
…now MME, you see why Jesus tell that man to sell all that he had and give to the poor and come and follow him….?
Brutus // August 10, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Bush Tea, if you worked hard for a lifetime and accumulate a few berries you would probably have learnt enough along the way to be able to safeguard them.
However if a few million berries happen to fall in your lap, you may not have the skills necessary to keep the sharks from getting at those berries.
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 9:29 PM
“Is Allard BACKING her? Or is it more correct to say that he is trying to USE her to achieve his ends – having failed to work with Classic?”
————————-
good question !!!
BWWR // August 11, 2008 at 4:29 AM
Amused, on August 10, 2008 at 2:23 pm you explained exactly my point, with a lot fewer words than I would have used. Thank you.
Bush tea August 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm you told of holdings in an insurance company and also in a “family business”. Is that family business a company (limited liability or otherwise)? If it is just a family business, then it would seem to me that you do own 1/5 of the assets, as you would be a tenant-in-common with the other interested parties on the business. If it is a company, all you own are your shares. It is the company that owns the assets. If a company, are you a director? If not, you will find the law (the Companies Act) offers you considerable protection. You can read the Companies Act online http://www.barbadosbusiness.gov.bb/miib/Legislation/Documents/companies_act_cap308.pdf and I refer you specifically to the bit that starts at section 228 onwards. If you are a director, it is very likely, however, that you may find it difficult to advance a claim un the Companies Act, but that would depend entirely on the circumstances. What did Madge do wrong? She sued. The articles of Kingsland were such that she could not claim a right of first refusal over Classic (see Privy Council decision http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/knox.jud.rtf) and she was not in a position, as a director of ten years tenure, to claim oppression. All she had to do was to keep hold of her shares and she would have been VERY much richer. But you see, it was never about shares or the masses of Kingsland land. Allard wanted the 2 ½ acres of beach front property on Maxwell Coast Road. And Madge willingly sacrificed her shares so that Allard could get what he wanted. Because, at the end of the first instance, as Keltruth has obligingly posted earlier in this blog, costs were already over $1 million. Now, it is ten times that. If somebody sued you and lost, would you be satisfied to have to pay your lawyers costs that they forced you to undertake? Or would you expect them, having lost, to have to pay these? By the way, generally I don’t like lawyers either.
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm. Right on the money. Bingo.
Pat // August 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm. Just want to correct that as I have seen documents – the Privy Council Record – that you have not. Initially, Mrs. Knox offered $3.60 or something like that, but within days she had offered to meet the Classic Offer – but that was a year after the Classic offer had been accepted and the deposit paid. The issue was that Classic already had an enforceable contract and had done for a year before Margie got off her backside.
Brutus // August 10, 2008 at 4:11 pm. Read the Companies Act and the Privy Council judgment. Madge could never have prevented the sale of shares by the others. She could not have claimed oppression as she was a director during the last 10 years of Kingsland’s operation. Also, there were injunction preventing the directors from dealing with the assets of the company, which would include accounts receivable – and all the government could do was pay the money it owed once these were discharged – with interest. And maybe that is what the government has done, but don’t expect Keltruth to tell you that. Most importantly however, Madge did not file her action in a timely manner. She waited almost a year. Therefore, it has to be seen according to the law that she agreed to the sale – that is the position that the court is BOUND to take and with counsel like Henry, she must certainly have know that.
Straight talk, I am not a director of Classic – nor a shareholder. I don’t know the answer. If you are talking about Kingsland pre-sale to Classic, do you think that this lack of audited financial returns was not complained of in the actions leading up to (and including) the Privy Council appeal? I see from the judgment at first instance and the Privy Council judgment that it was complained of by Madge – and ruled against. Remember, the Companies Act calls for audited OR COMPARATIVE financial records. How do any of us outsiders know that these were not offered. Mr Richard Cox and Mr. Erie Deane, please answer this for us.
Amused // August 10, 2008 at 6:59 pm. CORRECT!!!! That is what I think too.
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 7:40 pm. She doesn’t own the house. Kingsland does. She has always lived in properties supplied and supported by her Deane family. Some of the Deanes have told me that Classic has undertaken that she can continue to live in her house, rent-free, for the rest of her life. I believe this, but if it isn’t true, I am happy to stand corrected. Is this true, Keltruth?
Pat // August 10, 2008 at 8:53 pm. I think, Pat, that it is unlikely that as it stands the property is worth the US$1 billion claimed by BFP and Keltruth. If you tried to sell it on the open market as it stands, you wouldn’t even get a fraction of that. It may in years to come after about $300 million has be spent developing it, become worth that – but my view is that it is a tremendous gamble at best as you are relying on worldwide market trends as they exist now and on Barbados continuing to enjoy a stable government and off-shore and tourism popularity. Classic will doubtless make a lot of money on it, but not to the extent Madge claims – at least not now in 2008. By 2028, if they are very lucky, maybe, maybe not. A lot of us can look down (or up) and see if this is the case.
Bush tea // August 10, 2008 at 8:57 pm. “Is Allard BACKING her? Or is it more correct to say that he is trying to USE her to achieve his ends – having failed to work with Classic?” Second scenario is correct in my opinion. However, as she started her association with Allard while Henry was still representing her, I would strongly suspect that there is a secret written agreement between her and Allard. Maybe Keltruth would like to post that for us here on BU….but let us not hold our breaths.
Pat chile, thanks. I need the break and to be looked after a little.
Brutus // August 11, 2008 at 8:10 AM
BWWR,
Thank you for your response above and your advice. I have in fact already read the Privy Council judgment (which as you have stated deals only Mrs. Knox’s pre-emptive rights under the company’s articles), and I have some familiarity with the Company’s Act. I am not a lawyer and have no legal training, but I do have some knowledge of directors’ and management’s responsibilities.
You have stated very glibly that “she could not have claimed oppression as she was a director during the last 10 years of Kingsland’s operation”. With all due respect, that is your opinion – this would have been a matter for the courts to decide.
You have also stated that the lack of audited financial statements was complained of by Mrs. Knox and ruled against. I was not aware of this but I will take your word for it. However I would imagine that this issue was raised in a specific context (ie. that of her pre-emptive rights) and that any court ruling only spoke to this narrow issue. I have not been able to find the initial judgment, only the appeals, so I write subject to correction.
The point about the monies due from government is that these, presumably, would have been sufficient to clear the company’s outstanding debts, principally the BACT mortgage. Again, I write subject to correction. This is a significant feature of this matter which should not be glossed over.
However again, my key points are that:
- the directors, perhaps including Mrs. Knox, and management, may have been negligent in allowing the financial affairs to deteriorate to such an extent
- Mrs. Knox should have taken action a lot earlier to protect her interests
- Mrs. Knox should have focused on trying to get fair value for her shares instead of trying to buy all of the shares.
no name // August 11, 2008 at 8:26 AM
BWWR, enjoy your vacation.
We will miss you around here.
BWWR // August 11, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Brutus, thank you for yours. In large measure, you are absolutely right.
As I understand it, the oppression remedy is largely to advantage minority shareholders, although I do know of one case where a shareholder who was also a director stole $200,000 from the company and then claimed that their being fired as a result of their theft was oppression. But that is taking it to the other extreme. I see from the pleadings that Madge did indeed claim that she had been oppressed, but she vacated this claim and concentrated on pre-emptive rights before the Privy Council. My feeling is that it has to be very difficult for you to claim oppression when you yourself are a part of the body that does the oppressing – the directors. I agree with you that it is not impossible, but it isn’t easy. Anyway, Madge and her counsel obviously felt that the claim of oppression would not fly.
As far as the lack of audited financial statements is concerned, you are correct in saying that it was in the context primarily (but not exclusively in so far as I can recall) of her preemptive rights. I will undertake to get back to you on that once I have access again to the documents. I will also try to find the judgment of Greenidge J. and post it. It was for sure online, but I too have had a problem finding it recently, so I know what you mean. I’ll see if my “source” has a copy of it for the BU family.
On the matter of the money owed by government, my recollection (which is certainly subject to correction) was that it was just about $1 million or so. If anyone has any information as to how much this was in fact, I think we would all like to know a specific figure. However, as I said, please remember that the directors were prevented due to a injunction from dealing in any way with the assets of the company, so the clock on the interest was going to tick no matter what. Also important to ask is WHEN this acquisition by Government took place and WHEN the money first became due. The figure on its own, while important, cannot be lead to conclusions on our parts, absent the time-lines.
On your key points:
I would certainly agree that the management – which, whether she likes it or not, most certainly included Madge – was certainly negligent in allowing financial affairs to deteriorate as they did.
If Madge, as a director, had resigned much earlier and brought an action against the company and its directors, she would have been in a strong position.
Frankly, I would have tended, were I Madge and having full knowledge of the company’s assets, to have simply refused to sell my shares to Classic and forgotten the court cases. I would then have been in the position to capitalize on the new and more efficient management and, frankly, the new management would have been well advised to come to terms with me and join forces. That is what I would have aimed for.
Some further points though:
I would NOT have rushed to fraudulently try to hide or transfer my assets the moment I was served with notice of proceedings against those assets – I would have asked for a meeting with Ian and his counsel and seen if there was any basis for compromise and accommodation.
I would NOT have tried to place the shares into a trust in Miami, but left them in Barbados.
Once I was served with proceedings in the Ontario action, I would have filed an affidavit stating clearly that Nelson Barbados Group Limited does not have the standing to bring the action in the first place.
Frankly, there are a lot of things I would have done differently, all directed and motivated towards my protection, rather than in furtherance of the desires and vengeance of Mr. Allard. I have no doubt that, without rancour or resort to litigation, I would have found a way to retain my shares and to co-exist with Mr. Cox, rather than becoming the pawn in Mr. Allard’s vendetta against him and Classic.
Madge Knox had a choice and in my humble submission she chose badly. It is inexcusable, however, that to mask or rectify her own error, she now seeks to drag Barbados and its public organizations and its people down and to try to degrade them in the eyes of the international community. And that she has used blogs, namely Keltruth and Barbados Free Press that “moderate” out any comments adverse to her position, for this nefarious activity is just beyond the pale. She has done enough to further Mr. Allard’s vendetta against Mr. Cox. How dare she fuel his vendetta against her country and fellow citizens. That cannot be justified no how.
Thank you, Brutus. I always do my poor best to try to be completely accurate in what I may say. It is not always, even with the best will in the world, possible. However, with your approach, this has become a productive discussion where many questions and concerns can be cleared up, while the right to disagree is accepted, but does not lead to aggression.
No name, thank you, dearie.
Brutus // August 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
BWWR,
That was a classy response – thank you for taking the high road. I would be very interested in reading the original Greenidge J. judgment so please see what you can do.
In the meanwhile I will see if I can find any thing more concrete on the money owed by the government. I understand now your point that with the injunction in place the directors would not have been able to use the funds from the government. I need to re-read the various postings to see what this injunction was all about and what the timeline was.
» Russian court rules that PwC was active participant in tax evasion but PwC wins right to appeal Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA. // August 11, 2008 at 11:44 PM
[...] am concerned about the validity of the PricewaterhouseCoopers East Caribbean Firm (PwC) audits of Kingsland Estates Limited, as PwC has signed off on some very low valuations. PwC is a [...]
Anon 3 // August 12, 2008 at 3:00 AM
I agree, Brutus. I like to see discussions like this. I would be interested in knowing the reasons for the injunction in question. However, they are secondary in my view to the narrow sense of directors dealing with these government owed funds. I think you will agree that it is th scope of the injunction that is important to us rather than why and on what basis it was obtained. Was it Mareva or interim interlocutory relief? If it was the latter, was it ex parte or inter partes? Was it a complete freeze of the assets or a partial freeze?
Even if it was a complete freeze, the party in whose favour the injunction was granted can be approached to agree and have the court sanction certain variations, like the payment of monies owed to the company directly to BACT. Was this done? Was the injunction holder approached? Did they refuse – and I doubt they would have as a refusal to allow the debt of the company to be services would likely have provided grounds for the Court to revisit and heard arguments on the injunction.
Keltruth, in posting this information about PwC and Russia here, how in the name of all that’s sacred do you make the leap between Russia and Barbados in respect of Kingsland? Russia is second to Barbados as the leading off-shore country and you expect that the Russians are not going to investigate Barbados from the point of view of its viability for their operations? You mad. PwC Russia is a different entity operating under a different jurisdiction and laws to PwC Barbados with different legal counsel and everything – how can you apportion blame for what happens in PwC Russia to PwC Barbados and express on this basis your “concern”? Nonsense. So what are you now trying to say to cover up your failure to report either on your own blog or on your subsidiaryt blog, BFP, that you have been ordered by the Ontario courts to pay your costs by the 27th? Since you are not going to answer me, I will guess. Peter Allard, having decided to shift his sphere of operations from Barbados and the other governments in the area being well aware of his tactics and character, has now decided to move his interests to Russia. When this Ontario action fails, he will incorporate a company in Russia and your mother will go along with the lie that this company owns her shares in Kingsland and it will re-file almost word for word in the Russian courts the case that failed at the Privy Council and in Ontario. I think that is what you are telling us?
Anon 3 // August 12, 2008 at 3:47 AM
Since Keltruth has seen fit to post a link to its site here on BU that deals with Russia and money laundering and other accounting and valuation matters in an attempt to link it to PwC Barbados and to Kingsland Estates Limited, let us examine this clearly here.
We can all access the US State Department’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 2006 (I have not been able to access the 2007 report) dealing with “Major Money Laundering Countries.
Money Laundering appears to be a BIG concern of Keltruth. It has in the past tried to suggest that Panama is a better and more secure country for off-shore investment – let us see what the State Department of the Excited States of America – that prejudice-free (according to Keltruth) country has to say. Refer to: http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2006/vol2/html/62140.htm
Cut through the verbiage and proceed directly to the heading “Countries/Jurisdictions of Primary Concern”. What immediately grabs the attention is that among this group of countries to be most closely watched by the US are ….the United States itself, along with…. Australia….. Austria….. Canada….. France….. Germany….. Greece….. Guernsey….. Isle of Man….. Israel….. Italy….. Japan….. Netherlands….. and Keltruth’s supported country, Panama….. Russia….. Spain….. SWITZERLAND, folks….. United Kingdom. Among others. But that is the “A” list. The potential (or actual) worst offenders. No mention of Barbados on the “A” list.
Barbados is on the “B” list. Lesser threat, described by the State Department as “Countries/Jurisdictions of Concern”. Barbados, as a secondary threat as perceived by the US (they of course, being on the “A” List themselves) shares space with, among others…..Belarus….. Belgium….. Gibraltar….. Grenada….. Guyana….. Jamaica….. Monaco….. Poland….. Portugal….. Saudi Arabia….. South Africa….. St Lucia….. St Vincent….. Zimbawe.
I don’t need to go into the last category where no threat is apparently perceived by the Yanks, except to say that Trinidad and Tobago is listed there.
My question? What does this say about Keltruth and BFP? Mind you, once might easily also ask what it says about that most truthful and honourable of bodies, the US State Department.
Brutus // August 12, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Perhaps Keltruth would be willing to post the last audited financials of Kingsland so that we can all comment from an informed position.
» PwC has other problems besides Nelson’s Canadian $500 million law suit! Keltruth Corp.: News Blog of Keltruth Corp. - Miami, Florida, USA. // August 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM
[...] is that PwC is willing to take on long bruising battles in court! It will be interesting to see what happens with Nelson’s CDN $500 million case against PwC Eastern Caribbean [...]