Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
manxkinho

Alan Louis and his dodgy dealings

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

And let's not forget that we've got an MHK who's described this previous employer as, "One of the most diligent outfits he'd ever worked for", or words to that effect.

That may be a bit unfair on Rob Callister there.  What he may have been doing  was to indicate, in his role as someone trying to sort out the mess, that those working for Louis were doing their tasks effectively.  That means that Louis would be unable to blame anything that was wrong on his underlings being inefficient - if wrongdoings happened it was because of the boss.  You often see such sort of wording in reports and court judgments. 

The Judgment in the Louis disqualification case is now available (in two parts:

https://www.judgments.im/content/J2501.htm

https://www.judgments.im/content/J2502.htm

The verdict on Louis himself is pretty damning:

Quote

276.The nature and scale of Louis' misconduct and the harm which he caused can be measured in losses of tens of millions to investors and creditors whom he put at risk. I do not need to decide the exact total amount lost. For a period of over 4 years he flouted his duties, took funds, and mismanaged an insolvent business at significant expense to the public

277.Whilst the failure of the Louis Group was in part the result of market changes, that is the risk which Louis recklessly ran (with other people's money). I have zero belief in his claim that all would have turned out well were it not for the liquidations (ordered by the Court on good grounds) and asset sales which he would allegedly have better managed. Indeed, had the market stayed buoyant the likelihood must be that he would have attracted more investment and misappropriated more.

278.Louis offered no mitigation and it is difficult to find any for him. His misconduct demonstrated a gross, sustained lack of commercial probity. His attempts to blame LG IOM's personnel and others were unappealing and hypocritical. On the other hand, I do not consider that his conduct in these proceedings should add to the period of his disqualification. Whilst in some ways it was outrageous, he was entitled to defend himself and his counter-attack on the FSA was mere bluster; and he cannot be said to have made the process worse or more wasteful by showing himself in the appalling light which he did, which so reinforced his unfitness for office.

279.The fact that, as Louis claimed, he chose the Isle of Man for his operation because it was regarded as a regulated environment, and LG IOM operated in view of the FSA (including, he stressed, its building) may make his case even worse. Having regard to totality/proportionality and the public interest, the shortest period of disqualification that the Court can countenance for such grievous and morally culpable misconduct, is 12 years. Nothing less will protect the Isle of Man from the dangerous business methods which Louis demonstrated, or meet the deterrence objectives of CODA.

McCauley was also on the receiving end of some choice words:

Quote

272 [...]

(a)McCauley was (and remains) a minion for Louis, with whose instructions he was (and remains) accustomed to act without question. He was appointed and accepted his directorships without any understanding of or regard to the duties involved and saw himself as no more than Louis' hard-working and loyal bookkeeper.

(b)His unsuitability as a company officer was part-and-parcel of Louis' appointing him: whilst he was content to depend on LG IOM as administrator for the first 6 months of his office, he was not entitled to abrogate all responsibility until March 2010. He thereafter failed to keep board minutes and maintained what he preferred in his oral testimony to call "privacy" rather than "secrecy" in respect of dealings with Louis and his other companies.

(c)He had, and sought, no real understanding of LG SP's financial position and made errors in its accounts but seems to have accepted that whilst it was insolvent, he could assume that Louis and Structured Capital as its major creditor would keep it going: this was a significant part of Louis' "con".

Though Deemster Rosen also expressed a lot of dissatisfaction about the way the case had been handled by the FSA and (it appears) how they had just dumped all the documents on him to sort out, rather than making a professional case (see the Epilogue section).

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rog said:

Very let down is my guess.

Let down by this POS and his collaborators, and very let down by the Manx government for having such a less than useless FSA.

The FSA was created after the SIB heist, and it was only there to give comfort to investors, safe in the knowledge that their money was regulated by a first rate watchdog (No sniggering at the back of the class !). This guy should be in gaol now but like many before him he's walked from the court with a slap on the wrist. We don't want to deter other wealthy crooks entrepeneurs from setting up their shady business here. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As Rog Mexico mentioned ,Deemster Rosen had an epilogue section.

Here, he gives a lengthy and detailed critiscm of the FSA  which effectively means

-You were   far too slow

-You are very poor at dealing with data 

-acquiring it, analysing it  it and demonstrating it

-You   either lack   competence in   the basic skills in producing documents  and  presenting them  or  for some reason don’t see it as your job to do it  - but  in any event  you left it for me to do.

These are  very serious failings for the FSA -  an authority  that should  be a vigilant and energetic guardian.

 

 

Edited by hampsterkahn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA - well paid and well pensioned. Civil servanted-up to the max.

Fuck all that sorting stuff out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 2:08 PM, Roger Mexico said:

That may be a bit unfair on Rob Callister there.  What he may have been doing  was to indicate, in his role as someone trying to sort out the mess, that those working for Louis were doing their tasks effectively.  That means that Louis would be unable to blame anything that was wrong on his underlings being inefficient - if wrongdoings happened it was because of the boss.  You often see such sort of wording in reports and court judgments. 

Oh right he’s the one then. Well you do have to question the lack of judgement in even working for that bunch of charlatans. It was well known at the time what was going on even back to 2006/7. Plenty of people took top dollar to work with people they pretty much knew were crooks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...