The case currently before the Supreme Court weighs whether the control of scandal-hit Stocks & Securities Limited (SSL) is with the Financial Services Commission (FSC)—which took temporary management in January 2023—or the trustee Caydion Campbell, whom SSL directors appointed before the lead-up to a winding up and reorganisation of the firm.

This particular move was the FSC seeking to amend the claim against SSL and add the inclusion of the fact that two directors signed a solvency declaration before they resigned in January 2023.

Last Friday (March 1), the FSC filed a suit in court to add this claim against its original suit against the investment firm, which is at the centre of a $5 billion fraud case. The FSC is contending that the declarations were signed by Laurence Adamson and Peter Knibb, on January 12 and 13 respectively even though they are dated January 15, 2023. FSC claims they could not declare solvency because they had no authority to do so and that Campbell’s appointment breached directives.

Justice Batts, who has conduct of the matter, denied the request to amend and argued that without any legal authorities to support a view that resignations take effect on the date they are submitted and cannot be suspended on agreement between the parties, the FSC was asking the court to enquire into the honesty of the men without providing any evidence. Batts also mentioned that there were affidavits to suggest that there was communication with the SSL officials which would suggest that their resignations were delayed.

Batts suggested that the signing of the declarations would imply that their resignations were delayed and that the FSC could not prove anything to the contrary.

Lisa White, counsel for the Attorney General, who is leading the matter for the regulator argued that a conversation with the chairman or CEO is not enough to reinstate a director that has tendered their resignation. The counter-argument was that the FSC themselves is that they proceeded for a year on the basis that both of the men were still directors.

Justice Batts did not agree with the FSC’s argument as they did not provide any precedents to support the argument that the resignations were meant to take immediate effect.