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.

Monday, August 18, 2025

GORTT did bail out CL Financial

by

305 days ago
20241015

I have tak­en note of an ar­ti­cle in your Busi­ness Guardian Edi­tion of Oc­to­ber 10, 2024, in which an in­di­vid­ual named Carl­ton Reis in­di­cat­ed that his com­pa­ny has a con­trol­ling in­ter­est in CL Fi­nan­cial and in which he im­plied that the Gov­ern­ment did not “res­cue” CL Fi­nan­cial in 2009.

In this let­ter to the ed­i­tor, which fol­lows a fa­mil­iar pat­tern of ir­re­spon­si­ble jour­nal­ism, where your news­pa­per does not fact-check con­tro­ver­sial and ob­vi­ous­ly in­ac­cu­rate al­le­ga­tions made by in­ter­est­ed par­ties, Reis claimed that he did “not re­call a sin­gle in­stance when ei­ther the Cen­tral Bank or the Min­istry of Fi­nance in­di­cat­ed that CL Fi­nan­cial was be­ing res­cued” and fol­low­ing this ad­mis­sion of what can on­ly be poor mem­o­ry re­call on his part, he went on to ques­tion my state­ment in the 2025 Bud­get State­ment that CL Fi­nan­cial still owes the Gov­ern­ment bil­lions of dol­lars for what is com­mon­ly known as the “Cli­co Bailout”.

If Reis is cor­rect, then why did the High Court agree to CL Fi­nan­cial’s liq­ui­da­tion in 2017? Ob­vi­ous­ly, the Court was then, and still is, of the view that CL Fi­nan­cial owes the Gov­ern­ment sub­stan­tial sums of mon­ey. The Liq­uida­tor is al­so of that view.

Even the Privy Coun­cil is aware that the Gov­ern­ment bailed out CL Fi­nan­cial in 2009 and in a re­cent press re­lease about an ap­peal over the Liq­uida­tor’s fees in this mat­ter, the Privy Coun­cil stat­ed as fol­lows: “In or around 2009, the ap­pel­lant (CL Fi­nan­cial) raised con­cerns with the gov­ern­ment of the Re­pub­lic of Trinidad and To­ba­go about its fi­nan­cial dif­fi­cul­ties and the sys­temic risk those dif­fi­cul­ties posed to the fi­nan­cial sys­tem in Trinidad and To­ba­go and the wider re­gion in which it op­er­at­ed. The gov­ern­ment pro­vid­ed a “bail out” to the ap­pel­lant (CL Fi­nan­cial)...”

Fur­ther, a de­ci­sion over a claim aris­ing from the bailout of CL Fi­nan­cial and its sub­sidiaries is cur­rent­ly pend­ing in the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice. Cit­i­zens from oth­er Caribbean coun­tries who suf­fered as a re­sult of CL Fi­nan­cial’s col­lapse are de­mand­ing equal treat­ment from the Gov­ern­ment of Trinidad and To­ba­go and de­mand­ing mon­ey from Trinidad and To­ba­go as a re­sult of bailout by the Gov­ern­ment of CL Fi­nan­cial.

In that case, all in­volved, in­clud­ing the Caribbean Court of Jus­tice, are aware, that “in 2009 the Gov­ern­ment of Trinidad and To­ba­go de­cid­ed to bail out CL Fi­nan­cial (CLF) and its lo­cal sub­sidiaries...”.

Ad­di­tion­al­ly, Reis ap­pears obliv­i­ous to the terms of the June 2009 MOU be­tween CL Fi­nan­cial and the Gov­ern­ment, where CL Fi­nan­cial un­der­took to re­pay the Gov­ern­ment all sums in­vest­ed and ex­pend­ed by the Gov­ern­ment to “res­cue” CL Fi­nan­cial from its fi­nan­cial prob­lems at the time.

It is un­for­tu­nate that the Guardian would pub­lish Reis’ high­ly in­ac­cu­rate ver­sion of events with­out check­ing the ve­rac­i­ty of his as­ton­ish­ing claims.

The whole world knows that the Gov­ern­ment bailed out CL Fi­nan­cial in its en­tire­ty in 2009, and not mere­ly some of its sub­sidiaries.

The ir­re­spon­si­ble jour­nal­ism in this mat­ter, where on­ly one patent­ly in­ac­cu­rate side of a sto­ry is pub­lished with­out re­but­tal or fact-check­ing, is sim­i­lar to the re­peat­ed pub­li­ca­tion of high­ly in­ac­cu­rate and base­less al­le­ga­tions made by an en­ti­ty call­ing it­self the Cli­co Pol­i­cy­hold­ers Group, led by an in­di­vid­ual who sold his poli­cies, in full and fi­nal set­tle­ment, to a pre­vi­ous Gov­ern­ment and re­lin­quished all his rights to any fur­ther pay­ment from Cli­co many years ago. That in­di­vid­ual has not, in all those years, tak­en any le­gal ac­tion against Cli­co for his al­leged claim of fur­ther en­ti­tle­ment be­cause his chances of suc­cess would be al­most ze­ro. Yet the in­di­vid­ual’s base­less claims, pub­licly de­bunked sev­en years ago, are giv­en promi­nence by your pa­per every oth­er month with­out any fact-check­ing.

In con­trast, when a Gov­ern­ment Min­is­ter, like my­self, makes a state­ment backed up by fac­tu­al ev­i­dence, your news­pa­per rush­es to in­ter­view every bi­ased com­men­ta­tor it can find to con­tra­dict the Min­is­ter, usu­al­ly with­out both­er­ing to check the fac­tu­al ba­sis of the bi­ased and neg­a­tive com­men­tary in op­po­si­tion to the Min­is­ter’s state­ments.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored