By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
An attorney has denied that he “took advantage” of the elderly, frail protector of the late Sir Jack Hayward’s family trust, even though he was “just skin and bone” when he met him.
Andre Feldman, principal of Argus Advisors, alleged in a November 5, 2015, affidavit that Keith Griffiths “knew and understood what he was doing” when he acceded to the request by himself, and Hannes Babak, to remove two of the three trustees for the Hayward trust.
The May 17 dismissal left Prometheus Services Ltd, a company owned and controlled by Messrs Feldman and Babak, as the sole trustee for the Sir Jack Hayward Discretionary Settlement 1993.
It effectively placed the duo in control of the trust’s 50 per cent equity stake in the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) and its Port Group Ltd affiliate, and they further cemented their grip by persuading Mr Griffiths at the same meeting to appoint them as co-protectors for the Hayward family assets.
Their stay in ‘complete charge’ was rendered only temporary, though, after the Supreme Court granted the application by Sir Jack’s children and grandchildren to relieve Prometheus of its duties, and appoint Judicial Trustees to safeguard the family fortune instead.
Prometheus is due today to begin a two-day effort before Justice Indra Charles to overturn its removal, something the Haywards will resist. For they believe that Messrs Babak and Feldman exploited, and bamboozled, a vulnerable old man to seize control of the family assets.
Mr Feldman, though, vehemently denied this in his affidavit. “It is untrue that I took advantage of Mr Griffiths,” he hit back. “He knew and understood what he was doing when he removed Mr DeVries and Mr Barry.
“This was an act in the interests of the trust and the beneficiaries as a class. The paramount interest of this trust is the [sale of the GBPA and Port Group Ltd]. The continuation of Mr DeVries and Mr Barry’s role was not conducive to the progress of that sale. It was entirely proper that they should have been removed.”
Describing what happened when he and Mr Babak met Mr Griffiths at his apartment in Brighton, the UK, Mr Feldman alleged: “Before I arrived at Mr Griffiths house, I was aware that he was physically ill and knew to look out for any signs of mental capacity issues.
“As a lawyer, I was concerned about potentially obtaining a signature from an elderly individual in poor health. However, when I spoke to Mr Griffiths, I was quickly satisfied that those concerns were not relevant in this case.
“In particular, it was clear to me that Mr Griffiths was as sharp mentally as he had been when I last saw him and for the few years prior to that. As far as I could tell, he had the capacity to make important decisions: Our general conversation suggested he was alert, understanding, capable of retaining information and able to evaluate what he had been told.”
This is the exact opposite of the picture painted by Mr Griffiths’ UK medical carer and his close friend, Rod Purvis, both of whom believe he is suffering from memory loss and early6-stage dementia.
Mr Griffiths’ health and whether he understood what he was doing when he removed the two trustees are likely to be key issues for the Supreme Court to determine.
Mr Feldman conceded that Mr Griffiths was “very frail” and “looked thin and gaunt” when they met on May 17, but added that he “had no reason” to doubt that Mr Griffiths understood what he was being asked to do in removing Mr DeVries and Mr Barry.
“In our conversations he was sharp and aware as he had always been, and followed the discussions easily,” Mr Feldman alleged.
Yet, in the same breath, he admitted that Mr Griffiths did not ask many questions, and “nor was he experienced in legal and financial matters”.
Mr Babak backed Mr Feldman’s description of Mr Griffiths’ frailties, describing him as “really only skin and bone”.
“However, Keith was completely mentally alert,” Mr Babak added. “At no point at all during our meeting did Keith struggle to respond to any questions or to engage in conversation; he was never lost for words, and did not say anything unusual or out-of-place, and he did not use repetitive or stock phrases to fill in conversation; he was fluent and engaging.
“He was not confused about what was happening, and knew exactly what time and day of the week it was.”
Mr Babak, though, then admitted that he and Mr Feldman persuaded Mr Griffiths to appoint them as protectors of the Hayward trust in case he became “unavailable or unwell when urgent action” was required.
“Both Andre and I view our role as protectors as short-term appointments,” Mr Babak alleged. “As an interim solution, we could not think of anyone else who would be prepared to take the role on at such short notice. and it was necessary to have additional protectors given Keith’s frailty.
“We agreed that we would only serve on a very interim basis, and that it would hopefully be unnecessary to take any action. We have, in fact, not taken any action as protectors since we were appointed.”
Comments
MonkeeDoo 8 years, 4 months ago
Sounds like a GOLD RUSH !
Economist 8 years, 4 months ago
Good thing that the Court stepped in or there would be nothing left by now.
Protectors? I must have misunderstood the definition.......or maybe they have a special one....emmm.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID