In his opening submissions, Suisse Security attorney Philip Davis claimed that Governor Francis erred when he closed SSBT in early 2001 because the bank had previously obtained an injunction that precluded him from closing it for several specific reasons.
Mr. Davis said the day after a March 1 meeting in which Central Bank officials declared an intention to suspend SSBT’s licence if the bank did not comply with Central Bank requirements, Suisse Security officials obtained an injunction.
He added that the injunction provided that the Central Bank governor could not close the bank for reasons related to capital adequacy.
Mr. Davis asserted that Governor Francis acted in breach of the injunction when he suspended the bank’s licence on March 5, 2001.
The licence was revoked one month later.
Addressing the three justices of appeal assembled to hear the case, Mr. Davis said the Central Bank governor sought to find a way around the court’s injunction when he suspended Suisse Security’s licence.
He said the regulator’s decision to suspend SSBT’s licence was based upon the bank’s percentage of assets not being adequate security for customer deposits held on account.
Mr. Davis added that whether the suspension was based on the percentage or ratio of bank assets, the decision to suspend was still based on the bank’s capital levels, and was therefore a violation of the injunction.
Continuing his submissions, the Suisse Security attorney said following the governor’s decision to suspend the bank’s licence in early March, lawyers for the bank wrote a letter to Mr. Francis dated March 23, 2001 in which they inquired if SSBT would be required to take any additional corrective action to prevent revocation of the licence.
According to Mr. Davis, Governor Francis never responded to that letter, however, by early April he revoked the bank’s licence.
Highlighting key grounds of his client’s appeal, Mr. Davis questioned whether Mr. Francis acted “reasonably” by not responding to the March 23 letter, but subsequently revoking the licence without giving bank officials an opportunity to take the necessary actions to prevent revocation.
Asking for clarification on some points raised by the attorney for the appellant, Court of Appeal Justice Emmanuel Osadebay said it seemed as if Suisse Security was “picking a fight” with the regulatory agency rather than attempting to comply with its requirements.
Justice Maurice Churaman added that the governor seemed to have been given “the runaround.”
Mr. Davis responded, however, that both parties were to blame for failing to resolve the dispute amicably.
He added that by early 2001 the relationship between the two sides had deteriorated to the point where neither trusted the other.
The Suisse Security attorney completed his submissions Monday afternoon, while the attorney for the respondent – Central Bank Governor Julian Francis – is expected to make his submissions on Tuesday.
Mr. Francis is represented by William Blair, QC; Claire Hepburn and Rochelle Deleveaux.
Darrin Culmer, The Bahama Journal
