Lennox Linton Morning Report
After five days of testimony from four witnesses, lawyers will have their final say Thursday on whether or not the government of Dominica owns the majority shares in a company allegedly incorporated to develop the Layou River Economic Citizenship property.
The bid by claimants, Sino Union is to rectify the share register of the Shangri-La International Development Holdings Ltd to reflect the fact that the Government owns 51% of the shares as documented on the share transfer instrument of February 12th, 2006 and a director’s resolution dated April 18th, 2006
While Government is one of four defendants in this legal action, its case is in support of the claimant and the two positions have effectively merged.
That joint position is up against the arguments from Rich Victory Investments Ltd – the original majority owner of the Shangri-La – that its share transfer lapsed, was aborted or was cancelled on the verbal instructions of Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit as a result of failure to meet agreed conditions.
The claimants have told the court that the conditions at issue cannot be validated with documentary evidence because they never existed and were concocted years later for the purpose of defeating the move to establish the government as the rightful owner of the shares.
Paid Rich Victory witness, Kieron Pinard-Byrne, arguably the most visible and active architect of this edifice of intrigue has told the court his professional action as the man of multiple hats was simply to protect a seemingly hapless government from accepting a poisoned chalice.
The inconsistencies and errors of fact in the testimony of both Pinard-Byrne and David Hsiu severely compromised the credibility of the Rich Victory witnesses and will no doubt resurface in the closing arguments of the claimant
At the end of the day, the court may be mindful of the fact that both gentlemen were trusted advisors of Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit who wrote the letters that he signed and at times appeared to have directed his actions. Accordingly, the Prime Minister’s alleged “lapse of memory” with respect to the undocumented conditions could be reviewed in the context of his close association with the Rich Victory witnesses at the material times.
Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan who is heading government’s three member legal team, has taken the position that “the oral evidence of Rich Victory is in total conflict with the documentary evidence that has been produced; the transfer of shares was unconditional; the entire case of RV to a large extent is fabricated; and the evidence of the Prime Minister was truthful and factual…”
This case will be wrapped up sometime on Friday for the latest and lead attorney for the claimants Queens Counsel Reginald Armour believes the ruling from Justice Bannister could come within the next few months.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
The BVI case elaborated on what Angelo Allen has been speaking about for years now .
Interestingly , the very letters which were quoted back then on " The Latenite Show " have now surfaced as documentary evidence in the BVI's commercial court rooms . Let's also view the historic significance of Mr Skerrit's presence as the first OECS leader to testify in such a court .
This is all nonsense, why should the government defend it's self in court to prove that the 51% shares belongs to them? If the escrow man did not file the shares on time and allowed it to expired ,then the shares reverts back to the original owner control. Then it is a win,win situation for the government. Business is "wheeling and dealing", so what's the point of all this court case? who benefits if the government wins or looses??? EGOS.
If you guys are so honest why can't my postings appear instantly instead of being reviewed by the site admins – and if you are still honest let this comment be posted also. Again an example of how you guys capable of screening tings if you guys ever get backt in power – nuff said.
GOOD REPLY
HONESTDA IS CORRRECT