London-based The Sunday Telegraph broke the news on 19 December that the Bahraini authorities had lifted their travel ban on three British bankers, Alistair Macleod, Anthony James and Cliff Giddings, nearly 18 months after it was imposed in the wake of the collapse of Awal Bank, where they all worked.
Mr McLeod and Mr James each expressed their gratitude to the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Salman ibn Hamad ibn Isa al-Khalifa, for personally intervening to secure their release.
Read the full Sunday Telegraph story here.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Cayman Court rules on jurisdiction and contempt
As Britain's Financial Times and Abu Dhabi'sThe National have reported, an appeals court in the Cayman Islands has ruled that the Gosaibi-Maan Al-Sanea dispute should be heard in the country, over-ruling an earlier decision.
The same court lifted a contempt of court ruling against Mr Al-Sanea, which it had handed down in March of this year.
The ruling on jurisdiction was welcomed by AHAB. Their legal representative, Eric Lewis, was quoted by the Financial Times, saying: "We are extremely pleased that the Cayman Island Court of Appeal has recognized that this massive fraud claim should be tried in the Cayman Islands and that the parties should not be compelled to go to Saudi Arabia for the determination of preliminary issues". Maan Al-Sanea's representatives declined to comment.
The Cayman's ruling demonstrates just how muddied the waters have become, especially since a New York court earlier threw out AHAB's case, ruling that it should be heard in Saudi Arabia, where a committee has been analysing the case for more than a year. AHAB is also appealing that decision, while the Financial Times pointed out that Mr Al-Sanea can also appeal this latest ruling. As the Financial Times concludes, analysts have speculated that , given the apparent confusion, the dispute could "drag on for years".
Frank Kane, writing in The National, also looked at at the complexities of the case and its disputed jurisdiction, but made some particularly important observations about possible repercussions in Saudi Arabia.
As part of his judgement in the Cayman Court, Sir John Chadwick ruled that "there was no reason to expect the Saudi committee would reach a conclusion" on the dispute. "Nor", he argued, "was it possible to be confident that proceedings commenced in Saudi courts would lead to a decision determinative of (AHAB) claims against Mr Al Sanea within any measurable period, if at all."
Frank Kane argues that: "In layman's terms, he was telling the Saudis: "We've given you your chance but we're fed up waiting for you, so we're going to tackle it ourselves."
So, an intriguing ruling that throws up two immediate points of interest: first, as The National points out, "there are many chapters still to be in this Saudi saga."
Second, what will the reaction be in Saudi Arabia to the judge's seemingly unimpressed view of its committee? Their reaction will be something to watch...
Read the Financial Times report on their website (registration required) and read Frank Kane's editorial here.
The same court lifted a contempt of court ruling against Mr Al-Sanea, which it had handed down in March of this year.
The ruling on jurisdiction was welcomed by AHAB. Their legal representative, Eric Lewis, was quoted by the Financial Times, saying: "We are extremely pleased that the Cayman Island Court of Appeal has recognized that this massive fraud claim should be tried in the Cayman Islands and that the parties should not be compelled to go to Saudi Arabia for the determination of preliminary issues". Maan Al-Sanea's representatives declined to comment.
The Cayman's ruling demonstrates just how muddied the waters have become, especially since a New York court earlier threw out AHAB's case, ruling that it should be heard in Saudi Arabia, where a committee has been analysing the case for more than a year. AHAB is also appealing that decision, while the Financial Times pointed out that Mr Al-Sanea can also appeal this latest ruling. As the Financial Times concludes, analysts have speculated that , given the apparent confusion, the dispute could "drag on for years".
Frank Kane, writing in The National, also looked at at the complexities of the case and its disputed jurisdiction, but made some particularly important observations about possible repercussions in Saudi Arabia.
As part of his judgement in the Cayman Court, Sir John Chadwick ruled that "there was no reason to expect the Saudi committee would reach a conclusion" on the dispute. "Nor", he argued, "was it possible to be confident that proceedings commenced in Saudi courts would lead to a decision determinative of (AHAB) claims against Mr Al Sanea within any measurable period, if at all."
Frank Kane argues that: "In layman's terms, he was telling the Saudis: "We've given you your chance but we're fed up waiting for you, so we're going to tackle it ourselves."
So, an intriguing ruling that throws up two immediate points of interest: first, as The National points out, "there are many chapters still to be in this Saudi saga."
Second, what will the reaction be in Saudi Arabia to the judge's seemingly unimpressed view of its committee? Their reaction will be something to watch...
Read the Financial Times report on their website (registration required) and read Frank Kane's editorial here.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Ta'if Joins Twitter
Ta'if Info Center is pleased to annouce that it has joined Twitter. Follow us at http://twitter.com/taifinfocenter
Ta'if Editorial
Within the recent analysis by Mark Townsend, of Gerson Lehman, there was an important reference to an impending report by a company called Kroll, a British “risk consultancy company”. Kroll, it is believed was contracted by the Bahraini committee investigating AHAB's claims against Maan Al-Sanea.
As Mr Townsend notes, this report is 'much anticipated', not least, one would have to assume, than by the three British former Awal bankers who have been forbidden from leaving the country (though not charged) for well over a year.
Ta'if Information Center has commented frequently on the case of the three bankers, partly because it seems they are the most human factor effected by AHAB's allegations. One of the key points to note with regards this Kroll report is the case of HIBIS, another British investigative company that the three men are in the process of suing (see Ta'if article of June 2010). The bankers' allegations against HIBIS (of course, not yet heard in court) centre around two accusations: one, that they have been libelled; and two, that their confidentiality was breached when the HIBIS report was, they argue, leaked.
So, what of the Kroll report? Ta'if notes that Mr Townsend referred to its “potentially damaging findings”, though of course it has – we believe – yet to be submitted. We make no suggestion that anything untoward has occurred, but it is nonetheless interesting that the reports contents already seem to be the matter of negative speculation.
That could spell bad news for the Awal bankers. Given their past experiences, Ta'if wonders what steps they – and indeed the Bahraini committee – have taken this time round in the process to ensure that the report's conclusions are deemed fair by both parties (though of course the Hibis allegations are just that, allegations). Have the bankers insisted on complete transparency as to the report's authorship, independence and history? More importantly, will they receive it?
Kroll is a well-known and respected company. One would have to hope, therefore, that its report will be treated with the importance it deserves. The total independence of their findings must be beyond doubt, otherwise we, like the rest of those anticipating the report, will be, in the end, none the wiser.
As Mr Townsend notes, this report is 'much anticipated', not least, one would have to assume, than by the three British former Awal bankers who have been forbidden from leaving the country (though not charged) for well over a year.
Ta'if Information Center has commented frequently on the case of the three bankers, partly because it seems they are the most human factor effected by AHAB's allegations. One of the key points to note with regards this Kroll report is the case of HIBIS, another British investigative company that the three men are in the process of suing (see Ta'if article of June 2010). The bankers' allegations against HIBIS (of course, not yet heard in court) centre around two accusations: one, that they have been libelled; and two, that their confidentiality was breached when the HIBIS report was, they argue, leaked.
So, what of the Kroll report? Ta'if notes that Mr Townsend referred to its “potentially damaging findings”, though of course it has – we believe – yet to be submitted. We make no suggestion that anything untoward has occurred, but it is nonetheless interesting that the reports contents already seem to be the matter of negative speculation.
That could spell bad news for the Awal bankers. Given their past experiences, Ta'if wonders what steps they – and indeed the Bahraini committee – have taken this time round in the process to ensure that the report's conclusions are deemed fair by both parties (though of course the Hibis allegations are just that, allegations). Have the bankers insisted on complete transparency as to the report's authorship, independence and history? More importantly, will they receive it?
Kroll is a well-known and respected company. One would have to hope, therefore, that its report will be treated with the importance it deserves. The total independence of their findings must be beyond doubt, otherwise we, like the rest of those anticipating the report, will be, in the end, none the wiser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)