7 News Belize

Both Sides of BTL/BEL Dispute Ask CCJ For Specific Relief
posted (February 5, 2015)
Another case that Ashcroft attended personally was the appeal cases of the BTL/BEL acquisitions, which was heard by the Caribbean Court of Justice in December and January at their headquarters in Port of Spain, Trinidad.

It's the so called "war of worlds" where the former owners have appealed to the CCJ asking them strike down the acquisition of the utility companies. In 2011, the Barrow Administration acquired BEL and reacquired BTL and sought to legislate perpetual, public ownership using the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The purpose of that was put it beyond legal challenge in the Courts.

That case has already been argued, and the panel of judges are expected to deliver their ruling at a later date, but on January 23, the attorneys of both sides went back to Port of Spain to present to the CCJ judges what options that they have available for remedies if the acquisitions are ruled unlawful.

Today, we asked Government's attorney, Denys Barrow what submission were made. He told us that the Government wants the CCJ to allow the companies to remain in public hands while the former owners want the companies to be returned:

Denys Barrow, SC - attorney for GOB
"The government's position of course is that the acquisition was lawful and it was made lawful or confirm as being lawful by the 8th amendment to the constitution. The government's further position was that even if it is unlawful, the CCJ should order that the shares remain with the government and the government pay damages for the acquisition of the shares."

Daniel Ortiz
"If you hazard sir, can you talk to us about what the other side submitted should happen if it should rule unlawful?"

Denys Barrow, SC - attorney for GOB
"They were very clear that the shares should return. BCB, whose loan was acquired, or whose loans were acquired, said, they don't want back the loan, they want payment of the monies which should have been paid under the loan. Dean Boyce and the trustees of the BTL employees trust who are suing sort of as representatives, or as a lead claimant on behalf of the former shareholders - they want back their shares."

Daniel Ortiz
"Which would mean that the management returns back what it was before?"

Denys Barrow, SC - attorney for GOB
"Yes, the ownership, the management and the directorship would return to them. So, that's what they want."

Eamon Courtenay, who represented British Caribbean Bank and Fortis Energy International, told us today why the Ashcroft Alliance and Fortis want the companies back:

Eamon Courtenay, SC - attorney for Belize Bank
"I represented British Caribbean Bank. We were also there on behalf of Fortis and as you know Lord Goldsmith was there on behalf of the Dean Boyce and the employees trust. So, there were three appeals that were being heard at the same time. In so far as the bank is concern, you will recall that in 2009, the government acquired that was about 21 million dollars at the time. It is now over 50 million dollars because of the period of time that has passed. They acquired that from British Caribbean Bank. The government has not compensated British Caribbean Bank. We have argued to the court that the taking was unconstitutional, it was null and void and what the court should order, because so much time has passed, it to order the government to pay British Caribbean Bank the 50 plus million dollars. I am sure its 50 plus million US dollars by now. If the CCJ agrees with us and does not, then British Caribbean Bank would after being paid, if it is paid, assigned the rights that it has under the loan to the government and the government can go after Telemedia for that. So, very simply, British Caribbean Bank say to the CCJ, if you find this to be unconstitutional, order the government to pay the total amount that is outstanding in the books of the bank - 50 million US dollars."

"In so far as Fortis and the employees trust are concern, the primary claim is for return of the shares. If you have an unconstitutional taking, what the cases say, is that is null and void and therefore the acquirer, in this case, the government, never got title. The property actually stayed where it was and therefore those parties are asking the court to restore them to their shareholding, so that they would take over those companies. For which as you are well aware the government has paid not a dime in compensation."

Later in our newscast, we'll show you what Courtenay had to say about what would happen with those rate reductions government has given you, if BTL was to revert back to the Ashcroft Alliance.

Home | Archives | Downloads/Podcasts | Advertise | Contact Us

7 News Belize