It’s hard to criticise an organization whose members come from a group that make up well over ten per cent of the population and who were all in one way or another mistreated by CLICO or British American Insurance Company (BAICO) and successive Barbados administrations.
They say there are six degrees of separation, meaning that you can find yourself linked fairly closely to almost anyone on the planet by moving through up to just six who-knows-who’s or who-begat-who’s.
In Barbados perhaps it’s more like three, or two. So with apparently somewhere around 35 000 people affected by the demise of CLICO and BAICO here in Barbados, hey, it is likely you will know several of them.
Some of them have joined BIPA, the Barbados Investors and Policyholders Alliance, which has emerged as the main (or only) organized voice for these hard-done-by policyholders.
For the two or so years since its formation, BIPA has been waiting on the soon-to-be-history (I fervently hope) Dolittle Administration to come up with a solution to the problems facing those who put their hard-earned money into these two companies, mostly CLICO.
Many of them need to get their money out as their contracts or policies have matured, but everything is stuck. There is a lot of paper with words printed on it and there is a lot of grass and mud.
In between, the thing that brought the two together as one and allowed the business to continue can no longer be found for these companies: cash.
With the Dolittle Administration living up to its moniker and doing as little as possible to advance the cause of the pauperised policyholders, you can understand how the level of frustration has built up.
So recently, BIPA let it be known that it is getting ready to go to court. In the SUNDAY SUN of January 27, on Page 24A, it was reported that BIPA had “drafted statements of claim” for the court, its two lawyers, Alair Shepherd and Esther Arthur, setting out what “it [BIPA] believes those parties [CLICO and BAICO] should pay.”
On the emotional level, I agree with it all; every word. But I have a few tiny comments to make, hoping as I always do, not to annoy anybody before I slip away, back into my little resting place where nobody can find me.
The first observation I have is that BIPA wants to take on everybody on whom blame can be laid. From CLICO Holdings president Leroy Parris and the directors of both companies, the companies’ auditors and the Supervisor of Insurance.
But while some of the charges seem reasonably clear-cut, for example CLICO not filing annual reports, continuing to sell policies after it was ordered to stop, and so on; a lot of the other claims (as summarised in the story) just seem so vague.
Yes, you may have had lousy boards who may have seemed to be chilling as the ship was sinking, but how do you prove that in a civil case? Hey, I am not the lawyer here, I am just asking.
Another thing I wonder is, didn’t you realise we were about to have an election, BIPA? And that the CADRES pollsters had noticed something called a “swing” against the Dems, which apparently means they are not likely to be the government in a few weeks’ time?
Okay, so Dr Dolittle may have been talking a lot of rot about putting it off until May or June, but eventually common sense and Harold Hoyte dictated to him the error of his ways and, having painted his party into the tightest of corners, he has finally called the election for a date which, of course, he had established in his own far-seeing mind a long time ago and always knew it would be February 2I.
What I am saying, BIPA, is that you might have waited. Or perhaps you had decided that the new administration, if it does come in, will do a Barak on you and you will continue up the creek, no?
A few more weeks to test your hypothesis, if that were it, could not have hurt.
And really, do you think a court is going to get into the nitty gritty of executive and board decisions? Doesn’t Mr Shepherd remember his Kingsland case in which the court, upheld by the Privy Council, wouldn’t fault Kingsland for not preparing company accounts (as per the law) because it didn’t have the money to do so?
A company which had so much land to sell it could have borrowed enough to do its books and let its shareholders know what was going on. Ah, but perhaps that was why . . . anyway, water under the bridge.
Let me say it clearly, BIPA: Your members are not going to get all their money back, even under the most enlightened and fair administration. The sums just don’t add up, and the land is in Barbados and the majority of its policyholders are scattered across the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.
Who is buying land these days? And even if they did manage to sell off all of the land at market prices, I seem to recall that you would still be out of pocket by many millions. It is not a good case to argue for 100 per cent back.
If you want to go after the millionaire bossman and the boards of directors, be my guest. I will enjoy reading all about it, but what you need now at this moment is friends. Friends who will do stuff for you and get you a deal.
Threatening to take the Supervisor of Insurance to court is not the way to win friends in any government. Especially if the Bees get back in, as it was their supervisor.
And if you don’t make some friends, you may win all the court cases you want and there still won’t be any cash to pay back policyholders at least some of what was invested.
BIPA, if memory serves, also objected to the various solutions put forward by the judicial manager, not realizing that the more they hang on to demanding every dollar, or almost every dollar, back, the longer they will keep the judicial manager employed and earning millions because the court is not experienced enough to handle such complex financial matters.
Make a deal, BIPA. Maybe take a few courses in ADR. It is in your best interest. It is time to stop howling at the moon.
