TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
djaggs wrote:CLICO investors money was used to purchase/build the assets of CLICO, including build those methanol plants. NOT TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. CLICO investors have a right to make a claim against those assets to recover their money. The govt has no right to introduce legislation to infringe our rights to take action to recover our money. CLICO investors have more rights to those assets than the so called taxpayers whose money was not used to build those assets. What u are saying is that all the people who put their money into those assets have no rights and can have their money forfeited just so because somebody wants to control those assets. You dont have to be a lawyer to see the illegality of this thing. If this goes to court the policy holders will win.
There are powerful people in the background who have their eyes on CLICO's assets, people who are behind this govt. People talking a lot of sheit on the radio about policyholders. Is not rich bigshot people, is ordinary people who put all their savings into this investment because they trying to live.
The COP YOUth Congress wishes to come out in strong support of Finance Minister Dookeran on his leadership thus far on the CLICO bailout issue. Our statement of support comes in light of what is the recent, obvious politicking of the CLICO bailout issue by persons seeking to introduce their own agendas in what should be a ‘people-centred, future-driven’ approach.
It is most unfortunate that we note recent statements linking the government’s delivery on the CLICO issue to the political sustainability of the People’s Partnership. We believe that select parties and persons, in their attempt to maneuver through their own agendas, have regrettably attempted to divert attention from the required solution-oriented approach. It is imperative that all parties - government, the shareholders, and taxpayers at large - work together and maintain focus on the solutions required. Certain statements implying that Minister Dookeran is responsible for any collapse of the People’s Partnership are indeed utterly unwarranted, most unfortunate, and serve to divert focus away from finding a solution to the CLICO issue.
Since the first day of assuming office, Finance Minister Dookeran and the Finance Ministry have applied thorough investigation, the economic acumen and strong delivery of proposals, all in a very short time. This government has remained true to its commitment to working on a solution for the CLICO policyholders, and Finance Minister Dookeran has delivered the relevant foundation upon which dialogue can occur between the government and CLICO shareholders. In four short months, Minister Dookeran has evaluated the country’s financial state and the practicality of the approach used by the previous administration. All of this was done noting that our nation is now in different economic times, and that the country’s finances are different from when the PNM administration was in power. The Finance Minister, the Prime Minister, and the members of the People’s Partnership government have collectively delivered a National Budget that sought to bring relief for all persons affected by the CLICO fallout.
The COP YOUth Congress views the CLICO bailout as a sensitive issue. We must focus on finding a solution that balances the careful use of taxpayers’ dollars with the need to honor the government’s commitment to CLICO shareholders. We wish to pledge our strong confidence and unwavering support to the Finance Minister, the Prime Minister and her Cabinet in the ongoing resolution of this issue. More so, we are uncompromisingly committed to a resolution for all CLICO policyholders. The COP YOUth Congress would like for all parties to respect the sensitive, onerous nature of the CLICO Bailout issue, and to give the government, the shareholders and the taxpayers of this country the ‘breathing space’ required work together and resolve this issue.
To this end, The COP Youth Congress wishes to commend all stakeholders involved for their patience and teamwork thus far, and to urge all to focus on the delivery of an amicable solution.
We believe that the way forward must include:
1) Ongoing consultation and teamwork between the Government, the CLICO Shareholders, and the taxpayers of this nation.
2) The increased involvement of the Central Bank in the said discussions.
3) The full use of the Cabinet-appointed inter-ministerial committee to meet with stakeholders across the country on a timed, organized basis, so as to get more suggestions in solving this issue.
4) The use of the ‘special cases hotline’ set up by the Minister of Finance, so that persons with emergency and dyer cases can have their needs addressed urgently.
5) The introduction of sixty day timeline within which the government, the CLICO shareholders and other relevant authorities shall collectively work on a solution. After this period, they shall present their consensus to the nation for public input and begin implementation where necessary.
The COP YOUth Congress hopes that the proposals recommended herein are duly considered, and will continue to monitor the issue on behalf of CLICO shareholders and taxpayers everywhere.
Kieron Joseph Samaroo
Chairman, COP YOUth Congress.
National Executive Member, Congress of the People.
djaggs wrote:CLICO investors money was used to purchase/build the assets of CLICO, including build those methanol plants. NOT TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. CLICO investors have a right to make a claim against those assets to recover their money. The govt has no right to introduce legislation to infringe our rights to take action to recover our money. CLICO investors have more rights to those assets than the so called taxpayers whose money was not used to build those assets. What u are saying is that all the people who put their money into those assets have no rights and can have their money forfeited just so because somebody wants to control those assets. You dont have to be a lawyer to see the illegality of this thing. If this goes to court the policy holders will win.
There are powerful people in the background who have their eyes on CLICO's assets, people who are behind this govt. People talking a lot of sheit on the radio about policyholders. Is not rich bigshot people, is ordinary people who put all their savings into this investment because they trying to live.
djaggs wrote:Why is it that whenever a govt doing sheit and the affected people complain about it they does say is politically motivated ? De PNM used to do the same nonsense.
I am a COP member and supporter. However, if somebody doing sheit, i will say dey doin sheit, I not covering up for nobody.
I am still a COP supporter regardless, but if more sheit take place that cud change.
ek4ever wrote:I'm fedup of all this sheit with CLICO.....the gov't has no right in using taxpayer money to bail out this PRIVATE enterprise. All the persons who invested in CLICO when you signed any agreement I'm sure it was between you and CLICO or CL Financial NOT the GORTT. The govt should pull out of this business and tell the Clico shareholders/policy holders to take up the matter with Clico/CL Financial.
bushwakka wrote:djaggs wrote:CLICO investors money was used to purchase/build the assets of CLICO, including build those methanol plants. NOT TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. CLICO investors have a right to make a claim against those assets to recover their money. The govt has no right to introduce legislation to infringe our rights to take action to recover our money. CLICO investors have more rights to those assets than the so called taxpayers whose money was not used to build those assets. What u are saying is that all the people who put their money into those assets have no rights and can have their money forfeited just so because somebody wants to control those assets. You dont have to be a lawyer to see the illegality of this thing. If this goes to court the policy holders will win.
There are powerful people in the background who have their eyes on CLICO's assets, people who are behind this govt. People talking a lot of sheit on the radio about policyholders. Is not rich bigshot people, is ordinary people who put all their savings into this investment because they trying to live.
exactly, when the shiet hit the fan with the CL financial fiasco, Methanol, Ammonia & Urea prices were at an all time low, so low that it caused the M5000 plant to go on shutdown. At todays prices, these commodities have more than tripled in price......the profits generated by the new AUM complex, AX and MX plants will go a long way to paying off depositors......not this firesale sheit our backside PM was talkin abtdjaggs wrote:Why is it that whenever a govt doing sheit and the affected people complain about it they does say is politically motivated ? De PNM used to do the same nonsense.
I am a COP member and supporter. However, if somebody doing sheit, i will say dey doin sheit, I not covering up for nobody.
I am still a COP supporter regardless, but if more sheit take place that cud change.
X2
djaggs wrote:CLICO investors money was used to purchase/build the assets of CLICO, including build those methanol plants. NOT TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. CLICO investors have a right to make a claim against those assets to recover their money. The govt has no right to introduce legislation to infringe our rights to take action to recover our money. CLICO investors have more rights to those assets than the so called taxpayers whose money was not used to build those assets. What u are saying is that all the people who put their money into those assets have no rights and can have their money forfeited just so because somebody wants to control those assets. You dont have to be a lawyer to see the illegality of this thing. If this goes to court the policy holders will win.
.
Country_Bookie wrote:djaggs wrote:CLICO investors money was used to purchase/build the assets of CLICO, including build those methanol plants. NOT TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. CLICO investors have a right to make a claim against those assets to recover their money. The govt has no right to introduce legislation to infringe our rights to take action to recover our money. CLICO investors have more rights to those assets than the so called taxpayers whose money was not used to build those assets. What u are saying is that all the people who put their money into those assets have no rights and can have their money forfeited just so because somebody wants to control those assets. You dont have to be a lawyer to see the illegality of this thing. If this goes to court the policy holders will win.
.
The point that u missing here is that it doh only have EFPA holders to pay off. U have regular life insurance policy holders, the registered annuity holders (EFPAs were unregistered, see my earlier posts), and everyone who had their pensions with CLICO. Then u have the creditors of CLICO, i.e. people who lent money to CLICO by way of bonds. The assets that CLICO owns cannot pay off all these people, plus all the EFPAs. The shortfall is approx. $12 Billion. If the gov’t has to pay everyone 100% of their investment then we have to find another $12B from a budget of $49B. How exactly do u propose the govt find this additional $12B, which represents 25% of our national budget?
On the matter of court action, if u take the matter to court, the creditors will get paid first, since the legal documents dictate that they have first lien on the assets which were pledged as security for the bonds. The EFPA was an unsecured deposit, so EFPA policy holders would likely be last in line to receive payments. So ya’ll can go to court if u don’t like the gov’t offer, but ur unlikely to get anything better than the $75K & 20 year bonds being offered. Remember there’s a $12Bn shortfall, and ur at the end of the line of a long list of ppl that are owed money.
Aaron 2NR wrote:bushwakka wrote:djaggs wrote:CLICO investors money was used to purchase/build the assets of CLICO, including build those methanol plants. NOT TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. CLICO investors have a right to make a claim against those assets to recover their money. The govt has no right to introduce legislation to infringe our rights to take action to recover our money. CLICO investors have more rights to those assets than the so called taxpayers whose money was not used to build those assets. What u are saying is that all the people who put their money into those assets have no rights and can have their money forfeited just so because somebody wants to control those assets. You dont have to be a lawyer to see the illegality of this thing. If this goes to court the policy holders will win.
There are powerful people in the background who have their eyes on CLICO's assets, people who are behind this govt. People talking a lot of sheit on the radio about policyholders. Is not rich bigshot people, is ordinary people who put all their savings into this investment because they trying to live.
exactly, when the shiet hit the fan with the CL financial fiasco, Methanol, Ammonia & Urea prices were at an all time low, so low that it caused the M5000 plant to go on shutdown. At todays prices, these commodities have more than tripled in price......the profits generated by the new AUM complex, AX and MX plants will go a long way to paying off depositors......not this firesale sheit our backside PM was talkin abtdjaggs wrote:Why is it that whenever a govt doing sheit and the affected people complain about it they does say is politically motivated ? De PNM used to do the same nonsense.
I am a COP member and supporter. However, if somebody doing sheit, i will say dey doin sheit, I not covering up for nobody.
I am still a COP supporter regardless, but if more sheit take place that cud change.
X2
Clico energy is not part of the "company" that the government has acquired. When the PNM initially bailed out clico, Clico energy was not part of it and infact clico energy was sold to proman and man ferrostal.....the government has shares in these companies which were independent of clico energy's shares......
N200 and CNC are the only plants under the "clico energy" umbrella which was paid off already....
Clico annuities illegal’
By Andre Bagoo Friday, October 29 2010
CLICO’s controversial annuity product, the executive flexible premium annuity (EFPA), was “illegal” and designed to give Clico a competitive advantage by avoiding the deposit of reserve requirements of the Central Bank, a lawyer this week argued.
In a legal opinion prepared pro bono publico, commercial attorney IW Harracksingh argues that while the EFPA was billed as an annuity, it was in fact a fixed deposit. As such, purported policyholders of this Clico product would not be able to enforce payment in court against the state, according to the attorney, as the courts will not enforce illegal contracts.
The EFPAs account for about 24,000 out of 250,000 policyholders now in talks with the State for payment. Alone, the EFPA holders account for $12 billion in outstanding sums. Non-EFPA policy holders account for about half that amount.
“Bearing in mind that it is trite law that the law looks at the substance and not the form, this alleged ‘annuity’ is in effect a disguised fixed deposit/certificate of deposit for which, financial institutions are statutorily required to deposit a reserve with the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago,” Harracksingh, an attorney of almost forty years’ standing, argues in an opinion dated October 27.
“Thus, Clico was able to compete with the other Financial Institutions on an uneven playing field which (by offering higher interest rates) doubtlessly resulted in attracting more deposits than the other institutions (who were complying with the law),” he says in the three-page document disclosed to Newsday.
“The State may therefore successfully argue that those so called ‘annuities’ were issued to circumvent the statutory reserve requirement for fixed deposits and therefore ‘illegal’ and as we are all aware of the legal maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio – ie from a foul cause, no action arises, the Court will not therefore enforce illegal contracts.”
“Therefore, the EFPA holder would not qualify for state relief as they are not bona fide insurance policy contracts within the law,” he concludes. The lawyers’s findings will deepen concern over the failure of the State to properly regulate Clico and to police the products offered by Clico to the general public, notwithstanding the provisions of the Insurance Act.
Harracksingh details how the EFPA products are structured, noting that:
a) The “annuitant” makes an up front payment of a capital sum eg $100,000.
b) Clico agrees to repay the sum after three – five years with interest at 12 percent per annum payable monthly.
c) This means that the annuitant will now receive a monthly income of $1,000 for the next three – five years and at the end of such period, he will be repaid the capital sum of $100,000. (In the event of death, the estate of the annuitant will receive these benefits).
The Cabinet is today due to deliberate on proposals made by the Clico Policyholders Group in relation to outstanding policies. The Group has given the State a deadline of one week to made an offer after proposing the payment of an initial lump sum of 40 percent. It has threatened legal action, prompting the State to this month consider draft legislation which could shield it from legal action.
But Harracksingh, in his opinion, argues that Clico should not be shielded by the State against legal action, as this would be against public policy.
“It may also be successfully argued that for the State to indemnify Clico would be contrary to public policy,” he notes, pointing out that the State would have a defence of illegality in relation to attempts to enforce a contract.
“Notwithstanding the recent proposed legislation to bar legal action by policy holders (which has not been pursued), the State will still have these options (however unpopular) to exploit,” he said.
The attorney noted that policyholders would be able to pursue actions directly against the management of Clico in relation to their policies.
“At the end of it all, the State/policy holders will still have recourse against the management of Clico for fraud and/or misrepresentation and also under the provisions of the companies Act Ch 81:01 ss. 436 & 447 – liability of Officers for knowingly trading while insolvent,” he said.
The EFPAs–which date to the early 2000s — have raised eyebrows in legal and financial circles, with some questioning the role of the Central Bank as the product picked-up popularity over the years.
Section 24 of the Insurance Act notes that, “Every company registered under this Act to carry on any class of insurance business shall, at least one month prior to the date of the issue of a new form of policy...furnish the Central Bank with a copy of the standard form of policy or of the standard form of endorsement or of the form of application.”
Aaron 2NR wrote:^^ thank you....
john public isnt aware of the proman deal......so many hidden facts about that "bail out" the pnm did....
bushwakka wrote:^doesn't matter....no one high up will be held accountable in this banana republic....
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests
