Two independent members of the Board of Directors
of HFC Bank have charged the bank to take appropriate actions with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), on allegations of ‘insider trading’ by the
Republic Bank of Trinidad and Tobago (RBTT), before the process of a mandatory
takeover of HFC Bank proceeds.
According to them, this is to forestall
any possible legal action against the directors of the bank on their duty of
care and due diligence, because ‘insider trading’ is a criminal offence.
Mrs. Muriel Edusei and Mr. Francis Koranteng,
the two non-executive independent directors whose removal from the board of HFC
Bank is being pursued by SSNIT, raised the above concern in separate statements
over the weekend.
The statements were occasioned by a
letter signed by the Director General of SSNIT, Mr. Ernest Thompson and
addressed to the Board Chairman of HFC Bank last October, expressing
apprehension about the composition of the board.
Subsequently, SSNIT has requisitioned
for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the bank to be held on Tuesday
January 20, 2015 to remove and replace the directors.
According to the statements, the EGM has
been necessitated by the desire of SSNIT and Republic Bank to have Prof. Joshua
Alabi, the SSNIT appointee, who also happens to be the chairman of the SSNIT
board, appointed as chairman of the HFC Bank board; a position not backed by
any law or the HFC Company regulations.
They noted that even though appointees
of SSNIT had been on the board of HFC Bank since its inception, SSNIT did not
appear to have had any problem with the composition of the board until a few
months ago. Yet, no reason was assigned for the removal of the two directors,
even though they deny any wrong doing, the statements noted.
They have therefore challenged SSNIT to
tell the shareholders of the bank what aspects of the directors’ duties and
responsibilities had been breached to necessitate their removal.
“It is the right of shareholders to
appoint and remove Directors. This right is unfortunately being abused by
SSNIT. It is also the right of a Director, especially an independent Director,
to dissociate him/herself from actions by any shareholders which could lead to
criminal liability for the Director.
“As
you are well aware it does not lie within the powers of the Board to remove
directors appointed by you, shareholders”.
They claimed the move by SSNIT sought to
prevent further requests for investigations into the alleged ‘insider trading’
against RBTT.
The statements explained that because
directors carry civil and criminal liability for false statements, there was
the need to be cautious, and ensure that the allegation of ‘insider trading’ by
Republic Bank was fully investigated and resolved.
They said while the Republic Bank was
desperate not to have the insider trading allegation against them investigated,
their moves, with the collaboration of SSNIT, to remove the two directors from
the board was “indeed puzzling”.
“This ‘sword of Damocles’ was a clear
act to intimidate directors to vote for the SSNIT appointee”, stated Mrs.
Edusei.
There are issues of alleged insider
trading, a criminal offence, against RBTT which became a court matter between
HFC Bank and RBTT. The Supreme Court recently upheld RBTT’s view that the
complaint should first have been lodged with SEC and not at the court. That issue remains unresolved.
The statements therefore cautioned the
HFC Bank board not to turn a blind eye in view of shareholder interest, noting,
it is duty bound to establish the truth of this allegation.
Meanwhile,
SEC is expected to issue its report on the outcomes of investigations into
alleged breaches lodged by two concerned shareholders, Mrs. Eudora Koranteng and
Mr. Kwasi Asante, individually against RBTT.
Credit: HFC Bank
Comments
Post a Comment