In Business Page of October 3rd, 2010 I expressed the hope that those who were entrusted with powers and duties for the liquidation of Clico would ensure full compliance with the laws. For the several hundreds of persons who have so far received their cheques, the law and its processes are not important. But spare a thought for all the others who are in limbo, uncertain of their fate and funds and getting information from Mr. Lawrence Williams, the Court-appointed liquidator, that conflicts with commitments given by President Jagdeo. Let us remember that those in limbo include the NIS which is owed about six billion dollars by Clico and for which one way or the other we the taxpayers will have to bear the cost.
So far the liquidation has gone according to the script written by the President, a script that sets out a process and scheme of preference not consistent with the law. During the time, I have received many complaints and copies of correspondence and policies from persons who were told that because their policies did not have any cash surrender value they have nothing to get. There is merit in that. But what I find most uninformed, irrational and unlawful is what appears to be a circular-type letter sent by Mr. Williams to one policy holder earlier this month.
In the letter Mr. Williams identified eight types of policies sold by the company and encouraged the holders of those policies “to continue payment of premiums to avoid losing contracted benefits.” Whatever might be his intentions – and I know him well enough to know that these are well-meaning – what he is trying to do is legally questionable, unnecessary and unlikely to benefit policyholders.
The principal duty of the liquidator is to call in the assets and ascertain and pay off the liabilities of the entity. He can only carry on any business with the approval of the court.
Of the eight types of policies at least two are not susceptible to cash surrender value so his advice to pay premiums on those is ill-conceived. It would be silly for the holder of one of these policies to put further money into Clico. Find another insurance company and get another policy.
And for those policies that are so susceptible, there is no reason why any negotiations for the sale of a portfolio of policies to another insurance company – the rationale for his “encouragement” – cannot include policies that have already earned cash surrender value and those that have not. Why is he encouraging people to gamble on whether or not the belated efforts will succeed? Insurance is about covering risks, not taking a gamble.
But once again the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance that should be looking after the interest of the policy-holders and advising on technical issues has allowed itself to become a bystander.
The acting Commissioner Ms. Tracy Gibson now has taken up office at Clico, apparently appointed by Mr. Williams, along with Mr. Maurice Solomon, to carry out the liquidation on his behalf. Might I add that under section 375 of the Companies Act, Mr. Williams needed the permission of the court to make those appointments.
Unlawful action and poor supervision have played no small part in the substantial losses the country, its taxpayers and policyholders have suffered from the Clico fallout. Even if the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance makes the doubtful assumption that its obligations with respect to Clico ended with the appointment of a liquidator, the office holder should not abandon policy holders and become associated with actions that can bring the Office into question.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
