JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, May 24, 2025

Jack’s wife to stay in case over ownership of Centre of Excellence

by

Derek Achong
541 days ago
20231130

The Court of Ap­peal has re­ject­ed an­oth­er bid to have the wife of the for­mer Con­fed­er­a­tion of North, Cen­tral Amer­i­ca and Caribbean As­so­ci­a­tion Foot­ball (Con­ca­caf) pres­i­dent Jack Warn­er and two com­pa­nies owned by the cou­ple re­moved from a law­suit over the own­er­ship of the Dr Joao Have­lange Cen­tre of Ex­cel­lence in Ma­coya.

In De­cem­ber, last year, High Court Judge Robin Mo­hammed dis­missed an ap­pli­ca­tion from Warn­er’s wife Mau­reen, Ren­raw In­vest­ments Lim­it­ed and CCAM and Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed to re­move them from the US$37.8 mil­lion law­suit which was brought against them, Warn­er, Warn­er’s ac­coun­tant Ken­ny Ram­per­sad and Ram­per­sad’s ac­count­ing firm.

In a writ­ten de­ci­sion, de­liv­ered yes­ter­day, Ap­pel­late Judges Al­lan Men­don­ca and James Aboud dis­missed a pro­ce­dur­al ap­peal chal­leng­ing their col­league’s rul­ing.

“This was a prop­er ex­er­cise of his func­tion and case-man­age­ment dis­cre­tion. The ap­pel­lants have failed to demon­strate that the ex­er­cise of the tri­al judge’s case man­age­ment dis­cre­tion was er­ro­neous or plain­ly wrong,” Jus­tice Aboud said.

The out­come of the ap­peal means that Warn­er’s wife and the two com­pa­nies will have to face tri­al in the law­suit along with the oth­er par­ties un­less they are able to over­turn the de­ci­sion in a fi­nal ap­peal be­fore the Unit­ed King­dom-based Privy Coun­cil.

In the ap­pli­ca­tion, Warn­er’s wife and the com­pa­nies claimed that the case, filed by Con­ca­caf in 2016, was statute-barred as it con­cerned con­duct which took place be­tween 1995 and 2011.

They al­so sub­mit­ted that while Con­ca­caf could claim that Warn­er had a fidu­cia­ry du­ty to it based on his long stint at the helm of the or­gan­i­sa­tion, they had no such con­nec­tion.

Is­sues with the own­er­ship of the lu­cra­tive prop­er­ty, which fea­tures a swim­ming com­plex, restau­rants, a 44-room ho­tel, con­fer­ence fa­cil­i­ties, a gym and the Mar­vin Lee Sta­di­um, arose short­ly af­ter Warn­er’s suc­ces­sor at Con­ca­caf, Jef­fery Webb in­sti­tut­ed an in­tegri­ty in­ves­ti­ga­tion against him and fel­low for­mer pres­i­dent Chuck Blaz­er.

The in­ves­ti­ga­tion came three years be­fore Warn­er and Blaz­er and oth­er Fi­fa of­fi­cials were im­pli­cat­ed in a Unit­ed States (US) De­part­ment of Jus­tice in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to cor­rup­tion in the op­er­a­tions of world foot­ball’s gov­ern­ing body. Warn­er is still cur­rent­ly fight­ing his pro­posed ex­tra­di­tion to the US to face the charges.

In the claim, Con­ca­caf is con­tend­ing that Warn­er, his wife and the com­pa­nies were in­volved in a con­spir­a­cy to mis­ap­pro­pri­ate Con­ca­caf funds which were al­lo­cat­ed to con­struct the fa­cil­i­ty by mis­rep­re­sent­ing that it (the fa­cil­i­ty) was ac­tu­al­ly owned by Con­ca­caf.

Con­ca­caf al­so list­ed Ram­per­sad and his com­pa­ny as par­ties to the claim as it con­tend­ed that he had a con­flict of in­ter­est by serv­ing as the ac­coun­tant for both Con­ca­caf and the com­pa­nies.

In de­fence of the claim, Warn­er, who served as Con­ca­caf pres­i­dent be­tween 1990 and 2011, has claimed that he could not re­call facts sur­round­ing the deal due to Con­ca­caf’s de­lay in bring­ing the claim.

He al­so de­nied that he and his wife had a con­trol­ling in­ter­est in the com­pa­nies and that he mis­ap­pro­pri­at­ed funds.

Warn­er’s wife, Mau­reen, has al­so con­tend­ed that she was nev­er in­volved in the fi­nanc­ing of the project.

Ram­per­sad al­so de­nied any wrong­do­ing as he said that he pro­vid­ed sec­re­tar­i­al ser­vices to the com­pa­nies and claimed that he did not owe Con­ca­caf any fidu­cia­ry du­ty as he mere­ly served as an au­di­tor.

In 2019, US Dis­trict Court Judge William Kuntz grant­ed Con­ca­caf a de­fault judg­ment in a sep­a­rate US$79 mil­lion case against Warn­er, in which it al­leged that Warn­er em­bez­zled tens of mil­lions of dol­lars from it.

The out­come of that case was based on Warn­er’s fail­ure to de­fend it.

Warn­er’s wife was rep­re­sent­ed by Rishi Dass, SC, and Ma­ri­na Nar­i­nesingh, while the com­pa­nies were rep­re­sent­ed by Fyard Ho­sein, SC, Sasha Bridge­mo­hans­ingh, Aadam Ho­sein, and Anil Maraj. Con­ca­caf was rep­re­sent­ed by Jonathan Walk­er and Cherie Gopie.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored