Pkf Report On Mea

[Tugger]

There's an executive summary at the beginning which is quite useful. It's disappointing that someone has concluded that noone is to blame for this fiasco. I think if you look at the legal advice received from an English QC by the MEA Board it makes it clear who was at fault here. There was some contradictory advice from a Manx law firm but this advice was addressed to Barclays and specifically states that it cannot be relied upon by anyone other than Barclays. The PKF report states that the Board did rely on this.

 

The real question in my mind is whether the English QC or the local law firm is correct on the law. If the local law firm is right, the MEA is screwed and the government is almost certainly right in deciding to carry the can. If the local law firm isn't right, then it's an altogether different scenario, and one that, in my view, requires an altogether more aggressive approach from the Isle of Man government.

[Lonan3]

There is an interesting point right at the very beginning of the report where it lists those PKF have 'held discussions with and/or received information from'

 

Although Treasury Minister Alan Bell is listed, as is Former CM Richard Corkill, it is the Chief Executive of the DTI (Chris Corlett) who had to represent them, with no sign of any contribution to the proceedings being made by A Downie, the Minister in charge of the whole fiasco.

Hands up all those who are surprised by that...... Hmmm... anyone?

[joeyconcrete]

It's also interesting to see the MEA's view that the Treasury should have been fully aware of the financial situation. The conflicting legal opinion is interesting - in my mind its dodgy at best and I get the impression the MCC or MEA went looking for a way (or loophole) to obtain that loan. I'm certainly no lawyer but I'm sure nothing will come of it, they'll let the whole thing rest.

 

If you take a few steps back and look at the situation in a brief context, MEA got lots of money without Tynwald (who represent the people) and now the Public have to pay it back.

 

I guess this is the major grey area of having a semi-government run power company. If it was a private company, they'd go bust or they'd do things in the interest of profit (Not Mike). If it was a public company you'd imagine (although maybe not here) they'd be closer scrutiny from the government. The fact it sits in between is worrying, because as its been proven, a board of non-government employees can go and spend millions of tax payers money. Bizarre.

[Tugger]

It seems that the law requires Treasury consent, and the MEA assumed they had it because the Treasury didn't say anything when the total group borrowings rose, as set out in the MEA annual accounts. How they think this is an excuse I do not know - they should have got the Treasury consent before the total grouop borrowings rose, no? And they seem to be drawing some spurious distinction between the meaning of "approval" and "consent", when these two terms mean precisely the same thing.

 

And the MEA Board's response also uses the term "estoppel", known amongst litigators as a defence of last resort.

 

"I'm certainly no lawyer but I'm sure nothing will come of it, they'll let the whole thing rest. "

 

That will be done for political, not legal reasons, I think.