Lawyers for former chairman of CLICO International Life (CIL) Leroy Parris, his company Branlee Consulting Services Inc. and the Estate of David Thompson say they have now had the opportunity to study the Deloitte Forensic Audit of CLICO International Life Insurance Ltd., which was unsealed just last week by the High Court.
The lawyers have highlighted what they have deemed to be several deficiencies in the report, dated June 21, 2013.
They have taken issue with, among other things, the fact that to this day Parris, who is also the former chairman of CIL’s Barbados parent company, CLICO Holdings Barbados Ltd, has not been interviewed by the company’s judicial managers.
“Counsel for the two defendants will fairly and fearlessly guard their clients’ right to justice and will spare no effort in so doing,” said the lawyers, who also raised concern that the “forensic audit” provides “no hard evidence of any kind of its inquiry”; that it “makes no findings” and that the “reading public is left to speculate on a high level of implications and innuendo”.
They also noted that the judicial managers’ report provided no statement of accounts, and that in the absence of such, it had not been officially disclosed what professional fees have been paid to the judicial manager and other hired consultants.
“Most disturbing is the fact that the report is guilty of publishing down-right inaccurate information and, it would appear, has relied upon rumour and other less than factual evidence to make statements which it has represented and published as fact,” they stated, while making reference to a “unanimous resolution in writing of the Board of Directors of CLICO Holdings (Barbados) Limited”.
Page 10 of the judicial manager’s report states that “the quality of the document provided is poor and to date we have been unable to confirm when the document was signed”.
However, Parris’ lawyers said, “We have made several copies of the said document and are still able, without any difficulty to read on the face of the document (dated the 15th day of May 2005).
They also noted that the judicial manager’s report states that the document was signed by board members Woodbine Davis, Anthony Ellis, Leslie Haynes and Mr Vishnu Ranlogan, “but not Mr Thornhill”.
“That statement is just not true,” insisted the attorneys, pointing out “Mr Thornhill’s signature is clearly affixed as the fourth signature on the document”.
However, for them, “the most distressing feature” of the report was that it had been clearly indicated that the judicial manager had resorted “to whatever means available, in spite of the authenticity of such means, to present a case”.
“At pages 13-14, the report seeks to provide proof that a certain number of related parties and other parties of interest “did not appear to pay full market value for their units when the prices paid by third parties for comparable units were taken into account, based on Barbados land registration documents we obtained.
“It must be stated that all conveyances for the sale of land must be certified by the Registrar of Titles that the price paid in the conveyance represents the fair market value thereof. As such, no land could have been sold and registered by the company below the fair market value,” the lawyers said.