When a liquidation proceeding was initiated against the B & C Capital, Ltd., and Bateman & Company, defunct shell corporations that fugitive stock trader, Ryan Bateman had used to move millions of dollars of investor assets, stolen by Sharon Lexa Lamb and Derek Buntain, while they were senior officers of Dundee Merchant Bank, we attempted to obtain information about one of the claimants, which is a BVI corporation, with bearer shares. Imagine our surprise when we learned that the creditor's affidavit was signed by Mr. Buntain, indicating that he and the other Gang members were busy trying to get their hands on whatever assets the liquidators locate.
It appears that Buntain wasn't satisfied stealing million from his victims, he also wants to dash any chances that the victims could recover any of their money through the liquidation. His claim, made through one of the anonymous shell companies (with bearer shares) he controls, has absolutely no basis in fact, and is clearly an arrogant, and illegal, attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. We hope that the judge in the Grand Court demands that Buntain's attorneys produce evidence to prove up their bogus claim, and strike it, when no evidence is submitted.
Buntain & Lamb, who were the directors of companies owned by the victims of the Gang of Four fraud, had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets of their beneficial owners, those same assets that they stole. How can they now claim assets that their former clients clearly have a priority position upon ?
And while we are on the subject, Derek Buntain's attorneys, curiously, who are also the lawyers for Sharon Lexa Lamb, currently being sued in Grand Court, by one of the many Canadian victims, AND also are reported to be the attorneys for the liquidators of the Bateman companies. Is that not a conflict of interest, verging upon the facilitation of a fraud upon the court ? I will let the attorneys presently admitted to practice in the Cayman Islands render a qualified opinion on the law, but from where we sit, one cannot represent individuals, who have opposing and obligatory, duties and responsibilities, in matters which misrepresentations of material facts are being made to the court, amounting to fraud. Attorneys in the Cayman Islands are bound by rules of ethics, but they do not appear to have been followed in this case.