I note with interest an application before the court by the EFPA Policyholders Group (EPA) to "piggyback" on our existing legal proceedings against Clico and also claim that those were the proceedings which they had planned to file.What took them so long?I would first like to point out that our group represented by our attorney Dr Claude Denbow is in no way associated with the EFPA Policyholders group. Our small group is comprised of serious individuals who are committed as EFPA holders to securing more favourable arrangements, both for ourselves and for thousands of individuals who are in the same boat.
We have an excellent legal team and their work is there for all to see in terms of the two legal actions which have been filed.I have received numerous calls pertaining to the Clico Policyholders Group (CPG) of which I was the founder and first Chairman. (Not referring to the EFPA Policyholders Group represented by their Chairman, Mr Peter Permell).A couple of weeks after the formation of the CPG, I went to India to represent T&T at the Commonwealth Games and Mr Peter Permell took over the running of the Group. I disagreed with his methods of negotiating and constant exposure to the press, so I resigned upon my return. My letter of resignation, which was dated October 29, 2010, was not made public as I did not want it to look like the group was being fragmented.
This did not mean that I was inactive for the last 6 months as you can see from our legal action filed and now requests by the EPA to join with us. It is laughable that it should be suggested that we needed to consult with anyone or the EPA before filing any legal proceedings. It is important to emphasise that these filed proceedings are for the benefit of all EFPA policyholders. We have not paid any legal fees so there is absolutely no reason to request anyone to donate funds to the tune of millions of dollars.
Those of you who believe that if you do not donate to the legal fees will not receive any funds, I can assure you that is absolutely not true. I really do not believe CLICO or the government will allow that situation to arise. We have been advised that the proper course of action in a matter of this nature is to apply to the court for payment of legal fees out of the trust fund and our lawyers will do so at the appropriate time. I am sure the lawyers for the EPA will also do so.
The MOU entered into on 30th Jan, 2009 between the Minister of Finance and CL Financial clearly provides that any funds expended by Government to rescue CLICO are to be recouped and reimbursed from the sale of the assets of CL Financial and its subsidiaries, including its shareholding in Republic Bank Ltd and the Methanol Companies. It is noted that some of the CL Financial subsidiaries are making profits. This is the source from which the Clico bailout should be funded. The fact that successive Governments have taken no steps to implement their rights under the MOU should not be used in order to deny policyholders their entitlement. It is an unfortunate piece of misinformation which has been peddled throughout the country and actually believed by many.
Norris Gomez