The management of BlackShield Capital Limited, has appealed to the government to consider bailing out its customers as well.
The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has indicated customers of the 53 defunct Fund Management Companies (FMCs) apart from BlackShield customers.
But reacting to this development, a statement issued by the Management of BlackShield stated that, “It is noteworthy, that the SEC, refused BlackShield’s application to cease executing the order of revocation pending the hearing of its complaint.”
“The SEC disregarded this application by BlackShield and proceeded to deal with the assets of BlackShield despite the hearing. It is therefore surprising that the SEC would use the pendency of the same matter as an excuse to perform a duty which BlackShield has always supported and encouraged the SEC to do.
“SEC has had full access to the client’s information at least on three different occasions between 2019 till date,” the statement noted.
“BlackShield is surprised by this allegation of SEC regarding access to information on customers of BlackShield for validation purposes. We are interested to know how the SEC determined what percentage of the portfolio was given to them. Using the total value of claims filed, which the SEC reported to be GHS 4.65 Billion (a number significantly higher than the actual portfolio), 3% amounts to GHS 139 Million. Is the SEC claiming that BlackShield submitted a document or documents showing a total SF portfolio of less than 140 Million” the statement added.
It further stated that “it is patently clear that, the SEC and its agents in its dealings with BlackShield have not been fair and candid with the customers of BlackShield who have had to bear the brunt of these actions.
“BlackShield reiterates its readiness to work with the SEC for the inclusion of its customers in the government bailout package notwithstanding its marked disagreements with the SEC in respect of their exercise of some of its powers under their laws.
“Consequently, customers should take note, that the SEC has always being in a position to perform their work in relation to customers of BlackShield and their failure to do so is not as a result of any act or omission by BlackShield but perhaps a sheer attempt to evade the assumption of the responsibilities for BlackShield clients who constitute over 80% of affected clients in the Fund Management industry.”
“This allegation against Blackshield is yet another attempt to mislead the public into blaming BlackShield for its failures. It is noteworthy, that the SEC, refused BlackShield’s application to cease executing the order of revocation pending the hearing of its complaint. The SEC disregarded this application by BlackShield and proceeded to deal with the assets of BlackShield despite the hearing. It is therefore surprising that the SEC would use the pendency of the same matter as an excuse to perform a duty which BlackShield has always supported and encouraged the SEC to do.
“Additionally, SEC, for reasons best known to it, did not respond to BlackShield’s action filed on the 15 of June, 2020 until almost two months later after the action was filed. The only reason why the action is still pending thus, is because the SEC failed to respond within the time limits allowed by the rules of Court and cannot blame that failure on BlackShield.
‘More importantly though, going by SEC’s own referencing to happenings in respect of SDIs and MFIs, the commencement of actions by Unibank, Unicredit and GN Bank challenging the revocation of their license by BOG in Court, which matters are yet to be decided by the Court, was no bar to the inclusion of their customers in the government bailout package. The action by BlackShield challenging the procedure of the AHC in deciding its complaint therefore, ought not to affect the inclusion of customers of BlackShield as SEC has sought to do especially when the intention of the bail out, is to grant relief to all customers.
“Significantly also, the customers of BlackShield constitute about 80% of total claims made in respect of affected fund managers. If the SEC can conveniently exclude customers of BlackShield, then it saves them the arduous task of dealing with majority of the claims while laying the blame on BlackShield.
BlackShield states without equivocation thus, that as it has indicated in the past, it is in support of the SEC paying its customers notwithstanding its legal issues with the SEC. In fact, BlackShield has encouraged the SEC to use part of the funds which the Government of Ghana owes it, to pay its customers hence the proposed bailout package from government is very much welcome. BlackShield is ever ready to join hands with its customers for part of funds owed BlackShield by government to be used to pay them.