WHY DID GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS HOLD A CLOSED-DOOR HEARING IN BATEMAN & COMPANY LIQUIDATION ?

Cayman media, reporting on the latest developments in the unfolding scandal behind the court proceeding, regarding B & C Capital, Ltd.,* were forced to rely upon statements of the court-appointed liquidators, as the new proceeding, against Bateman & Company, Ltd., was held behind closed doors.  I don't know where you received your education, but if it was in a country whose legal traditions originated in English Common Law, you know that there's something seriously wrong, when any court denies access to the press and public, to a court proceeding, without just cause.

The Grand Court liquidation is a strictly civil matter, and there are no justifiable grounds to close the court to the public, especially when this is a matter of great public interest, with extensive press coverage. There was no legal privilege to protect, no right for either the insolvent companies, nor creditors, nor the liquidators themselves, to bar anyone from the court proceedings. The Court erred, in keeping the public from its right to know. Who gave that order to the Court ?

The Cayman Islands has been on the receiving end of a substantial amount of negative publicity about the underlying scandal, popularly known as the Cayman Gang of Four case, wherein four dodgy Cayman financial professionals stole as much as $450m from Canadian investors, in what may have been the biggest loss, suffered by investors, in the history of Cayman as an offshore financial center. Neither CIMA, nor the RCIPS, have brought any regulatory actions, and no arrests have been made.

Barring the press and public from the courtroom, in the pending liquidation proceedings, where there are serious allegations of missing money, and the individual behind the scandal, Ryan Bateman, is a wanted man in Grand Cayman, will only further convince foreign investors that the Rule of Law is not being followed in the Cayman Islands, and that they had better steer clear of the jurisdiction, purely on risk management grounds.
______________________________________________________________________
* We still are asking why the individual who prepared the affidavit, in support of the first (B & C Capital) liquidation, was no other than the missing, cashiered, former president of the insolvent Cayman bank, Dundee Merchant Bank ? How did the Court accept sworn testimony from a person who is accused of himself participating in the massive Cayman Gang of Four fraud ? And why did the parties refuse to make a copy of what is supposed to be a public document, available, for review ? Are we now sealing court documents, too ?