JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, July 25, 2025

NGC Indemnity not worth paper it's written on

by

Curtis Williams
1415 days ago
20210908

Cur­tis Williams

The in­dem­ni­ty that the gov­ern­ment has agreed to grant the Board of Di­rec­tors of the Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny may not be worth the pa­per it is writ­ten on ac­cord­ing to three Se­nior Coun­sels one of whom is a for­mer At­tor­ney Gen­er­al.

The Se­nior Coun­sels in­sist that un­der law Cor­po­ra­tion Sole has no such pow­er and that the mat­ter is open to ju­di­cial re­view.

They al­so say that the Kei­th Row­ley Ad­min­is­tra­tion is set­ting a dan­ger­ous prece­dence in grant­i­ng an in­dem­ni­ty to the Board of Di­rec­tors of the Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny for spend­ing hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars in an ill fat­ed at­tempt­ed to keep At­lantic LNG Trail 1 op­er­a­tional.

Ramesh Lawrence Ma­haraj who was part of the de­bate that brought in­to be­ing the Com­pa­nies Act of 1995 told the Busi­ness Guardian that it is clear on­ly the com­pa­ny can in­dem­ni­fy the Di­rec­tors and not the share­hold­er.

He ar­gued that the share­hold­er can­not make de­ci­sions for the com­pa­ny. This is the sole purview of the di­rec­tors who are re­quired to act hon­est­ly and pru­dent­ly in the best in­ter­est of the com­pa­ny (sec­tion 99 (1) of the Com­pa­nies Act Chap 81:01).

He said, “The ef­fect of all of this is that Cor­po­ra­tion Sole may be sus­cep­ti­ble to an ap­pli­ca­tion for ju­di­cial re­view of his (pre­vi­ous or fu­ture de­ci­sion) to grant an in­dem­ni­ty to NGC di­rec­tors which has the ef­fect of cre­at­ing a fu­ture li­a­bil­i­ty which re­wards wrong­do­ing. This is be­cause a di­rec­tor does not re­quire an in­dem­ni­ty if he is act­ing pru­dent­ly in the com­pa­ny’s best in­ter­est (sec­tion 99(2)) and, in any event, such an in­dem­ni­ty is giv­en by the com­pa­ny and not the share­hold­er. More­over, hav­ing re­gard to the dic­ta of Bereaux JA in ETECK supra, the in­dem­ni­ty is re­al­ly to pro­tect NGC di­rec­tors from fu­ture claims by an in­com­ing ad­min­is­tra­tion.”

Ma­haraj not­ed that in the ETECK mat­ter Jus­tice of Ap­peal Bereaux made the point that Cor­po­ra­tion Sole as a share­hold­er is not like­ly to bring a de­riv­a­tive claim un­der sec­tion 240 (1) of the Com­pa­nies Act against di­rec­tors ap­point­ed by the same gov­ern­ment.

He said, “In any event, in light of the po­lit­i­cal pa­tron­age that be­sets the ap­point­ment of di­rec­tors to the board of state en­ter­pris­es, it is hard­ly like­ly that any de­riv­a­tive ac­tion will be tak­en against di­rec­tors ap­point­ed by a sub­sist­ing gov­ern­ment.”

An­oth­er Se­nior Coun­sel who was pre­pared to speak off the record al­so sup­port­ed Ma­haraj’s point about the in­abil­i­ty of Cor­po­ra­tion Sole to grant the in­dem­ni­ty. He said, “I have doubts about that, whether his pow­er as Cor­po­ra­tion Sole would ex­tend to the giv­ing of an in­dem­ni­ty. I think his cor­po­rate pow­ers are re­strict­ed to deal­ing with the as­sets, for ex­am­ple in the case of shares, vot­ing shares, in the case of oth­er as­sets do­ing what­ev­er is di­rect­ly re­lat­ed to the safe keep­ing, in­vest­ment and so on of those as­sets. I think giv­ing an in­dem­ni­ty is more like a man­age­ment act and I don’t think ex­tend that way. I think that is the re­al ques­tion we have to grap­ple with and it would be very in­ter­est­ing to see who is ul­ti­mate­ly is the is­suer of the in­dem­ni­ty”

He said in a nor­mal set­ting a share­hold­er could pass a res­o­lu­tion rat­i­fy­ing the ac­tions, but then that cre­ates a bad prece­dence in the State en­ter­prise sec­tor.”

“It is a vi­cious cir­cle, be­cause if some­one want­ed to take ac­tion against the cor­po­ra­tion sole for giv­ing giv­ing an in­dem­ni­ty as cor­po­ra­tion sole, or in­deed for the com­pa­ny giv­ing such in­dem­ni­ty you will be su­ing your­self be­cause if you get an award of dam­ages or some­thing who you en­forc­ing it against? You en­forc­ing it against the state? We are the state be­cause these asets are held for us. So its a vi­cious cir­cle be­cause you su­ing your­self and that is why it is a bad thing to do.” not­ed the Se­nior Coun­sel.

Ma­haraj in­sist­ed that an in­dem­ni­fi­ca­tion can­not be rec­on­ciled with Cor­po­ra­tion Sole’s re­spon­si­bil­i­ty to look af­ter the pub­lic’s in­ter­est and pun­ish not re­ward di­rec­tors who con­tra­vene sec­tion 99 (1), (2).

He ex­plained that Sec­tion 101 (1) of the Com­pa­nies Act per­mits a com­pa­ny to in­dem­ni­fy a di­rec­tor against costs, charges and ex­pens­es rea­son­ably in­curred by him in de­fend­ing a claim brought against him as a di­rec­tor. This in­dem­ni­ty, how­ev­er, by sec­tion 101 (2) will not ap­ply if the di­rec­tor is guilty of a breach of sec­tion 99 (1) and (2).

“Sec­tion 3 (1) of the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance (In­cor­po­ra­tion) Act Chap 69:03 (Tab C) says that all NGC shares are held by Cor­po­ra­tion Sole in trust for the State but at sec­tion 3 (3), he may be sued in his cor­po­rate ca­pac­i­ty but on­ly in re­spect of any re­al or per­son­al prop­er­ty vest­ed in him. The NGC shares are vest­ed in Cor­po­ra­tion Sole as re­al or per­son­al prop­er­ty.” Ma­haraj posit­ed.

He point­ed to the Cord of Ap­peal mat­ter be­tween CEPEP and Oropouche MP Dr. Roodal Mooni­lal and the judge­ment of Jus­tice of Ap­peal Men­don­ca who said, “it can­not be dis­put­ed that the cen­tral gov­ern­ment has a lev­el of con­trol over the Ap­pel­lant. The Ap­pel­lant is owned by the State and the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance in his ca­pac­i­ty as cor­po­ra­tion sole is the sole share­hold­er…How­ev­er, the board of di­rec­tors is re­spon­si­ble for the man­age­ment of the com­pa­ny and it is with­in the board’s pow­ers, du­ties and dis­cre­tion to make a num­ber of de­ci­sions that would im­pact on the busi­ness of the com­pa­ny. I ac­cept that the sole share­hold­er of the com­pa­ny is in a po­si­tion to ex­er­cise con­trol over the di­rec­tors. But what is the ev­i­dence of the share­hold­er ex­er­cis­ing such con­trol? This is not re­al­ly ad­dressed in any way in the af­fi­davits be­fore the court.”

An­oth­er Se­nior Coun­sel who al­so want­ed to speak on con­di­tion of anonymi­ty said the is­sue of in­tent will be a ma­jor con­cern should the gov­ern­ment give an in­dem­ni­ty.

He said, “If a Board has to seek an in­dem­ni­ty, then it must raise a red flag as to whether they are ex­er­cis­ing their in­de­pen­dent, pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment and dis­cre­tion and act­ing in the best in­ter­est of the com­pa­ny which is their pri­ma­ry du­ty. If i am ask­ing for an in­dem­ni­ty it al­so rais­es red flags as to whether I was forced or co­erced in­to do­ing some­thing that was against my bet­ter judge­ment and knowl­edge and ex­per­tise. If a board takes a de­ci­sion in their col­lec­tive wis­dom they do no ask for an in­dem­ni­ty”

Karen Nunez-Tesheira who is a for­mer Law Lec­tur­er at the Hugh Wood­ing Law School and a For­mer Min­is­ter of Fi­nance and Cor­po­ra­tion Sole agreed with that point say­ing it ap­pears the Di­rec­tors were try­ing to avoid the Mal­colm Jones fate but in­sist­ed it was like­ly the In­dem­ni­ty could not hold in court.

“Clear­ly a Di­rec­tor, es­pe­cial­ly if it is a large com­pa­ny, a na­tion­al com­pa­ny with im­por­tance to T&T your fidu­cia­ry re­spon­si­bil­i­ties are enor­mous, and you ex­pose your­self to le­gal ac­tion be­ing tak­en by one of the oth­er share­hold­ers, in this case it could be bpTT of Shell or in change of gov­ern­ment as we saw with UTT and Pro­fes­sor (Ken) Julien and Mal­colm Jones and Petrotrin when the UNC gov­ern­ment was in pow­er, so clear­ly the re­quest for in­dem­ni­fi­ca­tion goes be­yond their con­cern with the cur­rent share­hold­ers in At­lantic Trains 1 to 4 but al­so any suc­ces­sor gov­ern­ment should they de­cide to do what the UNC did.”

The for­mer Cor­po­ra­tion Sole added, “I think the in­dem­ni­ty must stand the test of good faith, act­ing hon­est­ly or hav­ing rea­son­able grounds to be­lieve that your con­duct was law­ful and I am not quite sure giv­en the in­for­ma­tion that has been dis­closed that they may find them­selves be­ing able to reach that stan­dard of act­ing hon­est­ly or act­ing in good faith. So the in­dem­ni­ty may not help them un­der the statute.”

For Nunez-Tesheira there is a ma­jor dif­fer­ence be­tween State owned en­ter­pris­es and Statu­to­ry bod­ies like WASA.

“Dr Claude Den­bow had writ­ten an ar­ti­cle about the ques­tion of State En­ter­pris­es be­ing un­der a sep­a­rate piece of leg­is­la­tion than the com­pa­nies Act of 1995, but the fact is the Com­pa­nies Act says that State En­ter­pris­es, which are re­al­ly state owned com­pa­nies are gov­erned by the com­pa­nies Act which pro­vides for in­dem­ni­fi­ca­tion, li­a­bil­i­ty of di­rec­tors, which was al­ways part of the com­mon law and which had been cod­i­fied, so hav­ing said that State Owned En­ter­pris­es fall un­der the com­pa­nies Act who is to give in­dem­ni­fi­ca­tion to di­rec­tors it must be the com­pa­ny.”

Se­nior Coun­sel A calls it dodgy in the first and a cross ex­am­in­er’s dream.

He said , “I do not be­lieve that cor­po­ra­tion sole can give an in­dem­ni­ty as cor­po­ra­tion sole. He may be par­ty to a res­o­lu­tion that rat­i­fies the act. He can’t put us as tax­pay­ers in the line of fire for di­rec­tors who are in de­fault.

In what could has turned out to be a ma­jor scan­dal for the gov­ern­ment and state-owned Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny, (NGC) con­fi­den­tial cor­re­spon­dence be­tween Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert and the Board of the NGC showed the Board seek­ing, and Im­bert agree­ing, to grant them per­son­al pro­tec­tion against be­ing held to ac­count should the com­pa­ny lose over $440 mil­lion in an ill-fat­ed at­tempt to save At­lantic LNG Train 1.

Thanks to a whis­tle-blow­er the Busi­ness Guardian ob­tained let­ters be­tween Im­bert and the Board of the NGC, cor­re­spon­dence among At­lantic LNG share­hold­ers, cor­re­spon­dence be­tween At­lantic LNG’s Pres­i­dent and NGC’s Pres­i­dent Mark Lo­quan that all paint a pic­ture of the Train 1 res­cue ef­fort be­ing in deep trou­ble and hun­dreds of mil­lions of tax­pay­ers dol­lars at risk.

At the cen­tre of the is­sue is the NGC and Kei­th Row­ley ad­min­is­tra­tion try­ing to keep At­lantic LNG Train 1 op­er­at­ing in the face of bpTT and Roy­al Dutch Shell, both the largest share­hold­ers of At­lantic Train 1 and the largest nat­ur­al gas pro­duc­ers, say­ing they do not have nat­ur­al gas to op­er­ate Train 1 and it should be shut down.

It must be re­mem­bered this was ini­tial­ly hap­pen­ing in De­cem­ber last year and fol­lowed sev­er­al oth­er plants clos­ing un­der the gov­ern­ment’s watch. The NGC said it want­ed to keep Train 1 op­er­a­tional even though it has lit­tle nat­ur­al gas of its own, pay for the turn­around (up­grade) and a month­ly main­te­nance fee to keep the plant ready for even­tu­al pro­duc­tion if the nat­ur­al gas could be lo­cat­ed.

High­ly placed NGC sources say it was a risky strat­e­gy led by the NGC’s CEO Mark Lo­quan and the pro­ject­ed loss to the com­pa­ny was US $64.7 mil­lion or TT $440 mil­lion.

In a let­ter dat­ed Feb­ru­ary 25th 2021 and ad­dressed to Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert, the Board of the NGC said it had in­vest­ed, with Im­bert’s agree­ment, US $24.7 mil­lion (TT $168M) in what it calls the “AL­NG Train 1 res­cue pack­age” and want­ed per­mis­sion to spend an­oth­er US$40 mil­lion ($272M) to the end of the year.

The let­ter read, “Ref­er­ence is made to our pre­vi­ous dis­cus­sions on the AL­NG Train 1 res­cue Pack­age and your pre­vi­ous non-ob­jec­tion to the NGC Fund­ing Agree­ment with AL­NG up to the pe­ri­od March 31, 2021 where­by the sum of US $24.7 mil­lion was ad­vanced. I wish to con­firm that the Board of Man­age­ment of NGC met yes­ter­day and ap­proved the fur­ther fund­ing agree­ment with AL­NG for the pe­ri­od April 1, 2021 to De­cem­ber 31, 2021 in the sum of US $40 mil­lion.”

The let­ter to Im­bert added that the de­ci­sion was made ‘af­ter re­view of the var­i­ous risks in­clud­ing the avail­abil­i­ty of gas and cash flow and al­so au­tho­rised NGC LNG to sign-off with mem­bers of AL­NG on the Fund­ing Agree­ment res­o­lu­tion to­day’.

As pre­vi­ous­ly in­di­cat­ed both Shell and bpTT, the largest nat­ur­al gas pro­duc­ers in the coun­try and largest share­hold­ers in Shell, had told the NGC and gov­ern­ment since 2020 they did not have gas to keep Train 1 run­ning and with a short­fall in nat­ur­al gas in the coun­try, in­clud­ing for the Point Lisas In­dus­tri­al Es­tate, this was a ma­jor risk to the NGC’s plan to keep Train 1 go­ing.

Aware of this and oth­er risks the NGC in the same let­ter dat­ed Feb­ru­ary 25th 2021 asked the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance to in­dem­ni­fy it, its sub­sidiary com­pa­ny NGC LNG and the di­rec­tors per­son­al­ly.

The Chair­man of the Board Con­rad Enill who signed to the let­ter and copied in the Pres­i­dent of the NGC Mark Lo­quan wrote to Im­bert and said, “We al­so pre­vi­ous­ly dis­cussed your com­mit­ment to in­dem­ni­fy the NGC com­pa­ny and Di­rec­tors for any claims or loss­es stem­ming from the Train 1 res­cue pack­age ($168M). Our re­quest is to ex­tend that in­dem­ni­ty to cov­er AL­NG fund­ing for the April 1, 2021 to De­cem­ber 31, 2021. NGC is al­so re­quired to in­dem­ni­fy its sub­sidiary NGC LNG which holds the 10 per­cent in­ter­est in Train 1.”

It must be re­mem­bered that both Enill and Lo­quan sit on both Boards and were seek­ing to be pro­tect­ed on both counts. In ad­di­tion the late Mal­colm Jones was tak­en to court by the UNC gov­ern­ment who sought to hold him per­son­al­ly ac­count­able for de­ci­sions he made as Chair­man of the Board of Petrotrin and the mat­ter was on­ly dis­con­tin­ued when the PNM got back in­to pow­er. An in­dem­ni­ty would pro­tect the NGC Board from such a fate.

By let­ter dat­ed Feb­ru­ary 8th 2021, two weeks be­fore the Feb­ru­ary 25th let­ter re­ferred to ear­li­er, the NGC sent a copy to Im­bert of the In­dem­ni­ty doc­u­ment ‘with the re­quired wa­ter­marks’ for the Board and com­pa­ny not to be held li­able should the first US24.7 mil­lion be lost while the sec­ond let­ter was to in­dem­ni­fy for the US $40 mil­lion there­fore en­sur­ing they could not be made to pay from their pock­ets if the deal failed and the en­tire $440 mil­lion was lost.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored