It was just a couple of weeks ago that the Fed Court in Atlanta reopened the
Prosser/Bze suit also. The whole thing could become very interesting.
===========================================
Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh returned to his courtroom this week and the
first bomb he dropped was on Utilities Minister Ralph Fonseca. In an
explosive judgment issued today, Conteh says Fonseca acted
unconstitutionally in August of 2005 when he signed into law a statutory
instrument which nullified BTL's Articles of Association.
At the time, it was designed to strip Jeffrey Prosser of the rights to the
special share and to two seats on BTL's Board of Directors. It was
statutory instrument 109 of 2005 and it said: "the special share is
unlawful,
and the rights flowing from it of BTL's Articles of Association are of no
effect." It continued: "a copy of the amended Articles of Association has
been filed by the Minister with the registrar of companies." That
effectively threw out BTL's Articles and put in a new one, by the force of
Fonseca's executive decree. But most importantly for Fonseca, it stripped
Jeffrey Prosser of his directors on the board - which then allowed Ashcroft
to appoint all eight.

Well in today's judgment, the CJ says that Fonseca's statutory instrument
was, "incompatible with the constitution of Belize." In his judgment,
Conteh finds that Fonseca arrogated unto himself, the powers of the PUC,
and this, the Chief Justice found was: "an impermissible combination of
legislative, executive and judicial powers." Not only does it blur the
separation of powers, the Chief Justice goes on to say that Fonseca's SI is
inconsistent with the constitutional protection against the arbitrary
deprivation of property.

And, Conteh also frowns on another Fonseca SI, number 108, which seeks
to vary the time period to be included in a court ordered review of the
affairs of BTL. At the union's request, the court had declared that BTL's
affairs from 2001 to 2005 should be reviewed - thus including Ashcroft's
tenure. But Fonseca's SI changed the date on that order to 2004 to 2005 -
thus bringing focus on the Prosser year.

So, with all that, the Chief Justice declares that the special share that
Fonseca's SI sought to get rid of, is fully restored, that the directors who
were removed along with it, Jeff Prosser and Bobby Lubana were wrongly
removed, that BTL's original Articles of Association are back in effect, and
because of all this, the general meeting that BTL held on 30th September
2005 is now declared unlawful. For good measure, the CJ also restores the
inspection period back to the four years between 2001 to 2005.

And, as for the argument made by Ashcroft's attorneys that his company
made huge investments and loaned money on the strength of the Fonseca
S.I., the Chief Justice says, "I can only express sympathy for their
predicament." Cold...but that's what it is tonight, and now, presumably,
Ashcroft could tell the government that he invested and loaned US$37
million on the strength of its legislation, and without that...well,
government could be the one left holding a very expensive bag.

Apart from raising that possibility, the judgment sets askew the entire
balance of power on BTL's Board of Directors. With the judgment, Prosser
should have four directors of the 8 and the chairmanship, meaning that four
of Ashcroft's directors would have to go home.
======================================

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (Atlanta).
In an effort to retrieve some of the money apparently lost in the
Belize venture, ICC sued the Government of Belize (GOB) in U.S. District
Court in Miami last year; that venue had earlier been agreed to by both ICC
and Belize in connection with a loan secured from a Miami bank by GOB to
facilitate the sale of the phone company.
ICC argued that GOB had violated the terms of the phone company
purchase agreement and sought $200 million in damages. It also, briefly,
secured a $50,000 a day fine on GOB for failing to move swiftly enough in
response to an order by the judge. This was an unusual, if not unique,
decision in which a sovereign nation was to be punished for disobeying an
order by a federal district court judge.
The State Department objected to the fine, on the grounds that it
would be an unattractive precedent that might be used against America in
overseas courts. The fine disappeared and the trial judge largely ruled
against ICC last year. Then ICC sought a rehearing on the matter before the
same judge, secured it, and then lost again in the rehearing.
ICC then appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and had that
appeal tossed out on technical grounds (essentially a copying problem); last
week the circuit reversed the earlier technical decision and the appeal is
now pending.
=============
Note the last sentence above.