Sedi Explains Genesis of Progresso Heights Dispute

The case against Pickstock Area Representative Wilfred ‘Sedi’ Elrington which is presently before Justice Courtney Abel resumes on Wednesday in the Supreme Court.  The Foreign Minister is being sued by the principals of Progresso Heights Limited, a company which he helped to form in 2003.  Seven years later, Elrington proceeded to caution several pieces of property, prohibiting sale of those lands.  According to Elrington, the directors of the company failed to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act which stipulates that an annual general meeting be held at which time an auditor is appointed to review the accounts. He says that since the father and son owners did not follow the law, Elrington went ahead and cautioned the parcels.  They have remained under that designation for the past eight or so years.  Today, News Five sat down with Elrington who explained to us what went wrong with the partnership.

Wilfred ‘Sedi’ Elrington, Shareholder, Progresso Heights

Wilfred ‘Sedi’ Elrington

“We have not been able to get anywhere with the American directors because they have obviously been encouraged to try as long as possible to prevent me from being able to get a proper accounting and my proper share of the profits.  But there are legal means that exist that I could resort to, to deal with that sort of situation and one of the easiest was to simply place a caution on the properties so that they could not be sold.  But not only did the company not comply with the companies act in that regard, in terms of the auditors and the annual general meetings, but in my view they have also committed even graver infractions which to my mind disqualify them from being able to further deal with the assets of the company until we have a judicial determination. We tried to get the appointment of an investigator to go in and investigate it, that’s as early as about 2000, long ago, long ago, and we got objections.  They don’t want to have an inspector investigate the matter at all.  As a matter of fact, the case involving that aspect of it went on appeal and we are hoping to get a decision on that in September.”