|
A First Step May be Important Even if It is Small |
11 October BMB
announced
that the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) had ruled in
its favor in a case the Bank brought against 3 of its former
executive officers. English
version
of press release here.
The
BCDR ordered the three unnamed defendants to pay BMB USD 13,198,309
plus BHD 100 for attorney’s fees.
As
per the October press release, BMB initially brought the case in
2014 but suspended it while Bahraini authorities pursued a criminal
case which resulted in a November 2018 judgment of prison terms of 3
years for the defendants.
From
the original date of the case, we know this case related to the 2013
scandal previously discussed here.
Recall
that BMB has another BCDR case relating to its 2018-2019 scandal
discussed here (suit) and here (scandal). Interestingly, in this
latter case the Bank indirectly confirmed the defendants’ names by
confirming the accuracy of an AlAyyam press report.
As
to this case (2013 scandal), we don’t have the names of the
defendants However, in early discussion of the 2013 scandal, the Bank
said that it had fired the then CEO, CFO, and other senior officers.
How
do we know this? Or think that we do?
Because
the October press release cited above references a 20 July 2020
disclosure.
As
noted by the Bank, none of the 2013 scandal defendants currently
lives in Bahrain and that uncertainly relating to enforcement of this
judgment by a foreign court means the Bank is unable to estimate the
ultimate financial effect.
Three comments.
First,
given the “hole” that BMB is in, 100% collection is not going to
materially change the Bank’s dire position. Nor would 100% of the
other case. Together both total roughly 10% of BMB’s negative
equity.
But the directors are
to be commended for pursuing this action. Rather then let it languish
as the earlier board appears
to have because every dollar does count and fraud cases need to be pursued with vigour.
One--well at least AA--might wonder if there were reasons why some directors would
have preferred to let sleeping dogs lie.
Second,
the defendants have had ample
time to arrange their financial affairs to limit the Bank’s ability
to collect even if a foreign court enforces the BCDR judgment.
Third, also
unless the defendants were guests of the Bahrain state during the
criminal proceeding with “time served” counted against their
three year sentences, it’s likely they did not serve any time.