TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Cooloh wrote:I wonder if they will get anything back.. and how much taxpayers' money it will cost to recover.
janfar wrote:Y'all are fools to think something bill happen here. There is just going to be a bunch of lawyers collecting fat cheques to pursue a pointless case which will amount to the usual.
Dizzy28 wrote:So they find it was unfair to go after Malcolm Jones but going after this?
Taxpayer-owned Petrotrin went ahead with the $2 billion World Gas-to-Liquids (WGTL) project in spite of repeated and dire warnings not to proceed.
The stern advice came from top company officials and a reputable international legal firm.
Then-Executive Chairman Malcolm Jones and his Board of Directors were alerted all along about critical financial and technical risks and lack of proper planning.
Company bosses were alerted that WGTL Inc., did not have the funds for its end of the joint venture, in which Petrotrin were to have 49 per cent equity.
The project eventually collapsed and taxpayers ended up footing the whopping financial cost.
These and other shock findings have been uncovered by TTWhistleblower in on-going investigations into the scandalous and aborted joint venture.
WGTL Case Documentation (see more leaked information from our post last week)
The probe found that no due diligence or cost analysis was conducted by Petrotrin before venturing into construction of the expensive plant at Pointe-a-Pierre.
The previous People’s Partnership Government had filed legal action against Jones and his fellow directors, claiming they had breached their fiduciary responsibilities under the Companies Act.
In a stunning decision, Attorney General Fairs Al Rawi recently withdrew the suit, insisting there was not sufficient evidence to secure a victory in court.
The Attorney General has been roundly criticised for his decision, with most commentators saying the court should have been permitted to hear the matter.
Al Rawi has secured support from Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley, who, in 2009, had publicly raised concerns about Petrotrin’s spending on this and other projects.
Jones is currently a member of Rowley’s inner-circle National Energy Sub-Committee.
Investigations found that as far back as 2004, before signing of the joint partner agreement, there was evidence that US-based WGTL Inc., did not have the required funding.
Cost of construction of the plant zoomed from US $135 million to US $300 million.
This was attributed to an absence of proper and detailed planning and verification process “well in advance of the procurement and construction activities.”
Well-placed Petrotrin officials said the company did not conduct any cost estimate or perform any due diligence on WGTL Inc.
On March 17, 2005, Kelvin Singh, Petrotrin’s Vice President (Finance), wrote to Imtiaz Ali, Business Development Manager, raising several critical questions.
Singh asked whether WGTL had industry knowledge and operational capability in the gas-to-liquids process.
“An assessment of their expertise is required,” Singh told Ali.
He also asked about the funding process, and queried: “Is this a workable alliance?”
Singh further questioned: “In the event of cost overruns, can they supply additional/standby equity?”
He also enquired: “Is this a fixed price contract?”
Singh asked about the construction period, contingencies, completion guarantees, progress reports, use of technology, insurance provisions, licensing agreements and other relevant matters.
Reports are that there was no recorded response to the enquiries.
Analysts said the questions posed by Singh – and others – were the type that a company director should have raised in exercising due diligence and skill.
The legal suit against Jones and other directors claimed that no final engineering assessment was carried out.
As a result, WGTL Inc., was not able to raise funding for the project.
WGTL went to Petrotrin for joint venture funding.
Allen & Overy, a prominent international law firm representing Petrotrin, expressed concern about WGTL’s behaviour and advised against providing funds to the company.
An official of Allen & Overy wrote to Petrotrin: “This (is) most un-businesslike and… raises concerns about the probity of the individuals at WGTL…”
The note counselled “strongly” against acceding to the request for money.
Yet, on December 2, Petrotrin gave in to WGTL’s request for funds.
The suit against Jones and his fellow directors said: “At this stage, there was no reliable capital expenditure costing for the project and proposals for how these expenditures were to be financed.”
The writ further stated: A reasonably prudent director would not have advanced any funds until he/she could be reasonably sure that the loan funding would be forthcoming.”
Petrotrin exercised no control over the cost and project management of the plant, despite being the major funder, it was alleged.
The writ said the project was faced with escalating costs and a lack of definitive project capital budget.
In a stunning measure in January 2007, Petrotrin provided joint and several completion guarantees to Credit Suisse, to permit the granting of a loan to fund construction of the plant.
Financial experts said such guarantee from a minority shareholder was “unheard of.”
This was especially so because there was no reliable project cost budget.
In addition, the costs were increased on six occasions.
There was also a likelihood that the project would be scrapped –as if eventually was.
At a meeting of the Board of Directors on July 28, 2008, one director is quoted as saying that the costs continued to rise with no solution and such a situation would not be tolerated in any other organisation.
Directors reportedly acknowledged that they had “no reasonable assurance” on the project.
Petrotrin ended up paying on the Credit Suisse loan, as the project was aborted and WGTL went into insolvency and liquidation.
In September 2009, the local petro giant was told by WGTL Inc’s receiver that it could not receive any funds from the US company.
The money advanced by Petrotrin to WGTL was not ranked as a secured debt.
The PP administration later took legal action against Jones and his fellow directors for allegedly failing to exercise care, diligence and care, as required under Section 99 of the Companies Act.
The directors were sued to recoup a total of $1.2 billion.
In early March, Al Rawi said he had received written advice that the Government would not be successful in its legal challenge on the issue.
He withdrew the case.
Malcolm Jones and his ex-colleagues no longer have to answer on the costly matter.
Jones is currently advising the Rowley regime on energy matters.
And Trinidad and Tobago taxpayers have lost a staggering sum.
Dizzy28 wrote:So they find it was unfair to go after Malcolm Jones but going after this?
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:So they find it was unfair to go after Malcolm Jones but going after this?
One is a bad risky decision vs willingly accepting money for no work. Are they the same?
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:So they find it was unfair to go after Malcolm Jones but going after this?
One is a bad risky decision vs willingly accepting money for no work. Are they the same?
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:So they find it was unfair to go after Malcolm Jones but going after this?
One is a bad risky decision vs willingly accepting money for no work. Are they the same?
Dizzy28 wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:So they find it was unfair to go after Malcolm Jones but going after this?
One is a bad risky decision vs willingly accepting money for no work. Are they the same?
Did you read the story?
Not only is GORTT going after A Daniel but also the Sebastian Paddington led former SPORTT board is also being sued.
In both instances the cases involve taxpayers money being spent injudiciously and approved by Boards.
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Damned if you do damned if you don't.
airuma wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Damned if you do damned if you don't.
My understanding of the above statement is that it applies to A particular situation..... singular matter but two options to deal with it, one being maintain the status quo and the other unfavourable by most.
BTW, is this 34mil TTD or USD?
Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:airuma wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Damned if you do damned if you don't.
My understanding of the above statement is that it applies to A particular situation..... singular matter but two options to deal with it, one being maintain the status quo and the other unfavourable by most.
BTW, is this 34mil TTD or USD?
No need to over think like you usually do in other threads. It's TTD.
My qoute pertained to suing vs not suing.
sMASH wrote:Do it... It would count as the '1 step forward'
about hiring back 5he same contractors, Al waries will say "they are contractors and we need contractors, what's Ur point I am busy" .
airuma wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:airuma wrote:Allergic2BunnyEars wrote:Damned if you do damned if you don't.
My understanding of the above statement is that it applies to A particular situation..... singular matter but two options to deal with it, one being maintain the status quo and the other unfavourable by most.
BTW, is this 34mil TTD or USD?
No need to over think like you usually do in other threads. It's TTD.
My qoute pertained to suing vs not suing.
Really..... you think a PNM government will pass up on an opportunity to sue the beneficiaries of the previous PP government "lack of better judgement" (for want of a better term)! Nice try though.
If true that's unfortunate.Dizzy28 wrote:That current Sportt investigation where they sent home all the managers not going so well apparently. Any big revelations will implicate PNM ppl which they don't want.
janfar wrote:Y'all are fools to think something bill happen here. There is just going to be a bunch of lawyers collecting fat cheques to pursue a pointless case which will amount to the usual.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 54 guests
