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.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Hague to raise bankers' case with Bahraini prince
A story on the website (29 November) of leading London newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, claims the UK's foreign secretary, William Hague, will again raise concerns again about the treatment of four British bankers, detained without charge in the Gulf emirate for 17 months since July last year, following the collapse of the banks where they worked. Read the full article here.
A spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said Mr Hague would highlight Britain's worries about the men during a meeting in London on Tuesday with Salman ibn Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, the Crown Prince and heir apparent to the King of Bahrain.
Read the Ta'if Info Center report in September here on Mr Hague's last attempt to raise the matter with the Bahrein government.
A spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said Mr Hague would highlight Britain's worries about the men during a meeting in London on Tuesday with Salman ibn Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, the Crown Prince and heir apparent to the King of Bahrain.
Read the Ta'if Info Center report in September here on Mr Hague's last attempt to raise the matter with the Bahrein government.
Ta'if Editorial
It is fair to say that Ta'if is becoming more than a little bit tired of some of the tactics being employed in this dispute. In fact we are positively bored, disappointed and frustrated. We are in no way the only ones.
Back in June of this year Euromoney Magazine wrote a commentary about a whole series of emails that it and many other media outlets had received from addresses that centre around the term 'fraudwatch'. Given the extent to which these emails attack Maan Al-Sanea, it is not hard to surmise that they are being sent by someone (or persons) who are sympathetic to the Gosaibis' claims. Far from being of any merit, however, as Euromoney reported back in June, all these emails demonstrate is that “the senders...might hold a slight degree of malice towards Al-Sanea.”
Sadly these emails have continued and we must assume are being sent to hundreds, if not thousands of people. They have also become a lot more sophisticated (although in this case, that's almost a contradiction in terms). The most recent message contained a mock flight safety card, drawn up to repeat the Gosabis' accusations against Al-Sanea. Ta'if will not be presenting this here because we believe it does not deserve any kind of oxygen. But we do want to echo Euromoney's sentiments.
This dispute is a serious one. It has had, and will have, serious ramifications. These emails have no place in it, nor indeed in any kind of 'campaign'.
More than anything we are bemused that the emails' authors – and we make no accusations as to who they may be – could possibly think they are influencing media and public opinion. The emails are so flagrantly, so blatantly, so unrepentantly biased that they cannot be having any effect. Which makes you wonder why someone is going to all this effort. It's laughable really, which is why we believe there is really only one way to describe this kind of tactic: beyond juvenile.
Ta'if will be treating any further fraudwatch emails that it receives with what they deserve: “Mark as spam”. We imagine we are not the only ones.
Read the original Euromoney article here.
Back in June of this year Euromoney Magazine wrote a commentary about a whole series of emails that it and many other media outlets had received from addresses that centre around the term 'fraudwatch'. Given the extent to which these emails attack Maan Al-Sanea, it is not hard to surmise that they are being sent by someone (or persons) who are sympathetic to the Gosaibis' claims. Far from being of any merit, however, as Euromoney reported back in June, all these emails demonstrate is that “the senders...might hold a slight degree of malice towards Al-Sanea.”
Sadly these emails have continued and we must assume are being sent to hundreds, if not thousands of people. They have also become a lot more sophisticated (although in this case, that's almost a contradiction in terms). The most recent message contained a mock flight safety card, drawn up to repeat the Gosabis' accusations against Al-Sanea. Ta'if will not be presenting this here because we believe it does not deserve any kind of oxygen. But we do want to echo Euromoney's sentiments.
This dispute is a serious one. It has had, and will have, serious ramifications. These emails have no place in it, nor indeed in any kind of 'campaign'.
More than anything we are bemused that the emails' authors – and we make no accusations as to who they may be – could possibly think they are influencing media and public opinion. The emails are so flagrantly, so blatantly, so unrepentantly biased that they cannot be having any effect. Which makes you wonder why someone is going to all this effort. It's laughable really, which is why we believe there is really only one way to describe this kind of tactic: beyond juvenile.
Ta'if will be treating any further fraudwatch emails that it receives with what they deserve: “Mark as spam”. We imagine we are not the only ones.
Read the original Euromoney article here.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Pressure Mounts on Algosaibi
An article dated 15 November 2010 posted on the website of international consultancy, Gerson Lehrman Group, claims that Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers (AHAB) is under increasing pressure to strike a deal with banks.
The article by Dubai-based journalist and presenter of Business Breakfast on Dubai Eye 103.8 FM radio, Mark Townsend, states that AHAB has been told to decouple the ongoing legal proceedings and reach an immediate settlement with banks.
According to Townsend, AHAB's obvious preference for litigation outside the Kingdom has irked senior members of the Saudi establishment. The pressure to settle with banks is intense according to sources because of the impact the dispute is having on the Kingdom's political and business reputation.
Please click here to read Mark Townsend's full article.
A previous article by Mark Townsend (26 August 2010) on Gerson Lehrman Group's website, reported on the Ta'if Info Center, suggested that "now the dispute is back on home ground", Saudi Arabian royal family intervention was likely in the dispute between Saad Group and Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi Bros.
The article by Dubai-based journalist and presenter of Business Breakfast on Dubai Eye 103.8 FM radio, Mark Townsend, states that AHAB has been told to decouple the ongoing legal proceedings and reach an immediate settlement with banks.
According to Townsend, AHAB's obvious preference for litigation outside the Kingdom has irked senior members of the Saudi establishment. The pressure to settle with banks is intense according to sources because of the impact the dispute is having on the Kingdom's political and business reputation.
Please click here to read Mark Townsend's full article.
A previous article by Mark Townsend (26 August 2010) on Gerson Lehrman Group's website, reported on the Ta'if Info Center, suggested that "now the dispute is back on home ground", Saudi Arabian royal family intervention was likely in the dispute between Saad Group and Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi Bros.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)