Miami Judge continues to punish Belize
For the past two months, most of us were convinced that the fifty thousand U.S. dollar a day meter set by a Miami Federal judge had stopped ticking…but in a ruling this week, Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages dropped a bombshell on Belize’s international attorneys. On Wednesday, in a judgment entitled “Order denying…defendant’s motion to recognize purge”, Ungaro-Benages declared that the B.T.L. board meeting held on May sixth of this year did not in fact stop the contempt clock. Lawyers for Jeffrey Prosser’s I.C.C. have since calculated that from the date of the injunction levied against G.O.B. on March eleventh to today adds up to one hundred days or a total of five million U.S. dollars. In delivering her decision, the U.S. judge maintained that the Government of Belize “has failed to adequately explain to the court how the purported makeup of the board, Ecom with three directorships, and the defendants with one, was reached. This makeup is especially troubling because it appears from the records that the defendant holds significantly more shares than Ecom yet… Ecom holds three directorships on the board and the defendant only one.” The judge goes on to state that until Belmopan can show how the board composition of four I.C.C. directors, three Ecom directors, and one G.O.B. director was reached, the contempt order continues. This afternoon News Five spoke with one of Belize’s attorneys in Miami, partner in the law firm of Hunton and Williams, Barry Davidson.
Barry Davidson, Miami Attorney for Belize
?We don?t agree that it follows automatically that the order she entered means that she is going to determine that the fine has been running all these weeks when she hasn?t entered any order at all… She has basically invited us to submit additional information to help her figure out what happened on May sixth.?
Janelle Chanona
?But she has ruled that the May sixth board meeting in which only Keith Arnold appeared as a Government of Belize director has not been accepted as purge for her order to have a board meeting.?
Barry Davidson
?That?s correct, but she did that without?she used the term ?without prejudice.? She clearly has left the door open for us to come back and provide additional information about the May sixth meeting. It is the case that her current view is based on what she knows that the May sixth meeting was not sufficient. But she also clearly says, she asks questions and invites us to come back and answer those questions and she?ll reconsider whether the May sixth meeting was sufficient based on our answers.?
Janelle Chanona
?I know you?ve been upbeat every time we?ve talked about this contempt ruling.?
Barry Davidson
?Sure.?
Janelle Chanona
?But isn?t it possible that given the track record of her basically dismissing the Government?s arguments regarding this contempt fine, isn?t it possible that she will say that these days that we?ve been holding these hearings on this matter will count as contempt days??
Barry Davidson
?Janelle I would have to say, given what she has just done that anything is possible. But do I think that she is going to hold us responsible for the fact that it took her almost a month and a half to rule on a request to determine the May sixth meeting was sufficient, I think that would be a very harsh result. Because after all that?s where the delay has been, it?s been the fact that she hasn?t ruled.?
Janelle Chanona
?As part of your arguments, is the government going to explain why is it that at that meeting only Keith Arnold was there as a government representative with three people from Ecom, who now we are told, only holds fifteen percent. Will you explain why that composition was put in place??
Barry Davidson
?Of course. And in fact we have already explained it on the record before and it is a matter of public record that when the additional shares were sold to Ecom that as part of the deal, Ecom got three board seats. It?s no secret.?
The order denying the government’s motion to purge the contempt ruling was accompanied by two other denials: one a request by Belmopan to solicit the views of the U.S. Department of State, and an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.
According to Davidson, Judge Ungaro-Benages has still not set a date to render her judgment on the substantive matters before her. At that time, the U.S. judge will make her decision regarding claims of breech of contract and violation of the Uniform Commercial Code of Florida made by Innovative Communication Corporation against the Government of Belize.
