Barbados Today

Question: Was the CLICO Judicial Manager using the Madoff (Ponzi Scheme) settlement as a model when formulating his proposal for the CLICO EFPA policyholders?
If the answer is “yes”, then I must, by extension, question their interpretation of the whole Clico affair.
The accepted Oxford Dictionary definition of the word “principal” is: “(Of money) constituting the original sum invested or lent”. When the Freundel Stuart Government said that CLICO policyholders would get back 100% of their principals, the following very specialised definition of the word “principal” (relevant to liquidations) was allegedly being employed: the amount of money originally invested or lent minus all (contracted) interest received!!! To my mind, this is indeed a misleading use of the word “principal” in the context of EFPA policyholders’ principals.
It appears, therefore, that the judicial manager’s proposal is “saying” that individuals’ EFPA principals will be reduced by the amounts of interest received. The reduced amounts will then be placed in a specifically formed company, as 10 year non-interest bearing annuities – payment of interest is not mentioned in the proposal!
Government and corporate EFPA policyholders are also receiving contemptible treatment. They are to be given shares in aforesaid company, which turns out to be, basically, a “holding company” for some of CLICO’s assets!
As I see it, the proposal gives EFPA policyholders, relatively, what I would call a pittance and the traditional policyholders everything! This is totally unfair and unacceptable. A policyholder is a policyholder and the type of policy really should not come into it.
Whether it is 100 per cent for all, or zero per cent for all — all policyholders must be treated equally. It is to be remembered that EFPA policyholders bought their policies in good faith, as did the traditional policyholders and all ClICO policies are bonafide financial instruments, or else they would not have been available at all.
My message (to ALL concerned parties, Barbadian and foreign) is to say “No! No! No!” to the judicial manager’s unbalanced proposal and that only cash settlement is acceptable for all EFPA policyholders — individual, corporate and government
Shame on the judicial manager for such a shabby proposal and on the Government for supporting it!
It is now more important than ever, in order to avoid blatant unfair treatment, that, specifically, EFPA policyholders come together under “one umbrella” and fight for what is rightfully theirs.
— Joy Stewart