Injunction to remove CPBL C.E.O., Henry Canton, revoked

eamon courtenay

An extra-ordinary special meeting called by the Citrus Growers Association is still on track for Friday following a ruling by Justice Minnet Hafiz Bertram. The meeting intends to terminate Dr. Henry Canton as CEO for Citrus Products of Belize Limited. The majority shareholder, CGA, wants him out but a minority shareholder, Banks Holdings, filed an application for an injunction to prevent the removal of Canton. Attorney for Banks, Senior Counsel Derek Courtenay, argued in court today that removing Canton would breach the investment agreement. He says Canton’s five year contract was one of the conditions of Banks’ investment and if the meeting was allowed the shareholders would run the company instead of the directors. But Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, attorney for the CGA, submitted that this was not a matter for the courts, but for arbitration within the company and that Banks has no say in Canton’s contract with CPBL. There were also a minor sparks over the proposal to have CGA Executive Director, Henry Anderson assigned as temporary CEO once Canton is removed. At the end of today’s hearing, Justice Hafiz denied the injunction and while Canton’s head is on the line, Anderson has withdrawn his name as replacement. The CGA attorney explained their arguments for News Five.

Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for CGA

“We were arguing to the court that there was no basis on which Banks Holdings could justify getting an injunction to restrain the removal of Dr. Henry Canton as the CEO of Citrus Products of Belize. Our argument was that there is an investment agreement between the parties and that agreement provides for arbitration in the case of disputes. And if a dispute has arisen as they say it has—they identified seven particular disputes—that matter is to be taken to arbitration, it’s not for the courts. We also pointed out to the courts that if Dr. Canton says he ought not be removed, he is entitled to sue the company for damages so that damages is an adequate remedy and if there was an award of damages, it would not be against Banks Holdings, it would be against CPBL so Banks Holdings would not suffer any loss. So in the circumstances, the balance of convenience lay in not granting the injunction that Banks Holdings was trying to get and fortunately for our clients, the judge found in our favor.”

Delahnie Bain

“The other side, what was their argument for the injunction?”

Eamon Courtenay

“They were saying that if the judge did not grant an injunction, then it means that our clients, in their view, that our clients were in breach of the agreement and they were saying that they should stop us from breaching the agreement. If you don’t stop us, we’re going to break the agreement in the future and it is going to result perhaps in the companies being wound up; CPBL. We tried to say to the judge that those arguments are for another day and for a different place. All those arguments about breaches of the agreement are for the arbitration.”