The return of Lawrence Duprey was the Sunday Express lead story on 15th January 2017 – ‘Rebirth of Duprey‘. This is one of those times when one is really sorry that an original suspicion was true.

We seem to be striding straight toward a precipice with no clear information at all about why, or how. The largest-ever special interest deal now seems set to return CL Financial to Lawrence Duprey and his cohort, which will be hugely detrimental to the public interest.

These bailout conditions in no way resemble the Wall St examples, despite the comical claims of its defenders that it was the same thing. There are three important differences –

1. the CL shareholders kept their shares;
2. the massive loan of over $20 Billion to the Caribbean’s wealthiest individual was made at a zero interest rate, that’s right, zero;
3. the CL Financial chiefs were never required to give a public explanation of what caused this massive collapse.

Those terms were agreed by the Cabinet in January 2009. It is a real ‘sweetheart deal’ to assist Mr Duprey and his cohorts to a soft recovery so they could get back control of the companies when things improved. We are now reaping what our rulers sowed, hence the title of this article.

The Central Bank has the duty to use its ‘fit and proper regulations‘ to prevent certain persons from taking positions of responsibility in our financial system. Those regulations apply to Directors, Officers, Shareholders and Actuaries of Financial Institutions. The Central Bank therefore has a serious duty of oversight for our financial system, beyond monetary policy and operations. It is unacceptable that the Central Bank has never applied the ‘Fit and Proper’ regulations to disbar the CL Financial chiefs from participating in our financial system. That unexplained failure to apply the rules has opened the door for today’s re-emergence of the responsible parties.

As then Executive Chairman of the CLF group and signatory of the fateful 13th January 2009 request for the bailout, Lawrence Duprey cannot escape the conclusion that he is not fit and proper to be in control of a financial institution. Also consider these items –

• On 7 June 2011, the Central Bank started a serious lawsuit against Lawrence Duprey, Andre Monteil and other elements previously in control of the CLF group. The Central Bank press release is sobering as it states some of the alleged actions of these persons –
  • “subordination of the interests of CLICO, its policyholders and mutual-fund investors to the private interests of Mr Duprey, Mr Monteil and their companies;“
  • “the lack of proper governance and serial mismanagement;“
  • “improper dealings with CLICO’s assets and the funds of policyholders and mutual fund unitholders.“
• Dr Keith Rowley’s scathing remarks to Parliament on 1 July 2016 about the conduct of the responsible parties at CLF, referring to the Colman Report – “…a number of adverse findings of criminal misconduct of a kleptocratic nature were found…” pg 42.

Also, the role of PWC is reportedly to have prepared an exit proposal to return the CL Financial group to its shareholders, with phased repayment of the monies advanced in the bailout. PWC were CLF’s auditors up to the time of the group’s collapse, so the continuing role of that firm is a striking part of the record in this sorry affair. In any case, how does one prepare such a plan in the absence of audited accounts?

At this point there is no clear idea as to just how much money has been advanced in this huge and unprecedented bailout. The cost of the bailout has escalated from an estimated $5.0 Billion in January 2009 to over $25 Billion in some official estimates. We are now hearing a figure of $19.3 Billion, but we are being deliberately deprived of details. That is to the detriment of the public interest. What is more, that official reluctance to give details does little for the carefully-concocted image of rectitude with which our politicians clothe themselves from time to time. Sometimes I wonder if they imagine a public which cannot see through their disguises.

On 28 April 2016, Finance Minister Imbert explained at the post-Cabinet briefing on Thursday 28 April 2016 that the gross differences in the stated amounts paid in the course of the bailout had so concerned him that he had decided to proceed with a forensic audit. That audit was to have been ready in a few weeks time, so where is the report?

My lawsuit against the Ministry of Finance to get the details of the bailout was successful on 22nd July 2015, but the then Minister appealed immediately. I have just received the appeal submissions filed by that Ministry on the last working day of 2016, Friday 30th December. I have been advised not to make the arguments here, but the Ministry of Finance is determined to oppose publication of the bailout details, even going so far as to raise fresh arguments not raised in the High Court.

This is where we are.