Financial services board won’t see Ghavalas-style transactions set aside

In an attempt to avoid any opposition to their motion, the FSB set the matter down for hearing on the unopposed Court Roll. However several parties, including Simon Nash and Aubrey Wynne-Jones, opposed this motion and the Judge ruled that the matter has to be argued on the opposed roll in March 2012.

Previous occasions where the FSB and/or one of the FSB’s favoured curators, Antony Mostert have failed to overturn the approvals, which were given by the FSB in the 1990’s included a ruling by Judges Joffe:

In a 2008 ruling, Judge Joffe ruled against Mostert and found for Ghavalas as follows:

“Prior to some substantial amendments brought about to the Pension Funds Act on 7 December 2001, it was not believed by anyone that pensioners had a right to an actuarial surplus…… An employer could take a contribution holiday, i.e. cease making contributions to the fund. This would have the effect over time of the actuarial surplus being used up by the non-contribution of the employer…….Suffice to say the Section 14 certificates remain intact.”

In a similar matter, Judge Satchwell also ruled against Mostert stating:

“I am in agreement that Mostert has unilaterally assumed interventionist rights and powers for himself and attempts to ride roughshod over the courtesies, the protocols, the purposes as set out …… in the ordinary rules of evidence and process of this court. The application was, in a number of respects, based on inadmissible hearsay and opinions. The curator (Mostert) of the applicants should have known better and should have been more cautious.”

Commenting on this latest attempt by the FSB to have the Section 14 Approvals set aside, Simon Nash said: “This is another instance where both the FSB and Mostert have attempted to snatch judgements by stealth. It is more than 16 years since the FSB legally approved the Ghavalas transactions by approving the Section 14 submissions. Had the FSB not given the approvals, none of the Ghavalas transactions would have gone ahead. After all, the Section 14 approval was a prerequisite for the implementation of all the Ghavalas transactions.”

“After almost 20 years, the FSB tries to set aside the approvals that they themselves authorised, saying that they made a mistake! Aside from attempting to steamroll this application through, surely they need to take note of previous judgements and stop wasting taxpayers’ money.”

Share this article
Financial services board won’t see Ghavalas-style transactions set aside