Access board connections
The Editor, Sir:
We act for the defendants in the matter between Marcus James and some of the members of the board of directors of Access Financial Services Limited.
We wish to clear up some inaccuracies that have been printed in the article: 'Access board battle today'.
The second paragraph of the article refers to the board as a "Mayberry-connected board". In fact, the board of Access is not connected to Mayberry. The board of Access is its own entity with its own rules for composition, procedure and governance, all of which are set out in Access' Articles of Association.
The sixth paragraph of the Article reads: "Amid ongoing efforts by top shareholders Mayberry West Indies Limited and its connected directors to remove Marcus as CEO of [Access]".
This opening sentence contains two statements which are factually incorrect. First, the assertion that there are efforts to remove Mr James as CEO is incorrect. The board has tried, on several occasions, to bring disciplinary proceedings against Mr James about, inter alia, the unauthorised expenditure made by him of company funds upon renovation of building owned by his family. It is against that background that Mr James initiated proceedings against the company and some of the directors of the board.
Second, the repeated reference of directors that are connected to Mayberry and/or its affiliated is unfounded and incorrect. At the time of publication, the composition of the board is Gary Peart, Christopher Berry, Marcus James, Alexander Johnson, Peter McConnell and Brian Goldson. Mr Johnson is the appointee of Mr James and had previously served as an independent director. He was subsequently given an executive post within the company. It is Mr Johnson's assumption of that executive position that necessitated the appointment of another independent director namely, Mr Peter McConnell.
It is true that Messrs Peart and Berry are appointees of Mayberry. However, Messrs McConnell and Goldson are independent directors. Accordingly, and reference to them being "Mayberry connected" is erroneous.
Having regard to the generality of the suit before the Court, the argument being put forward by Mr James and his legal team is that the board is prohibited from bringing disciplinary actions against him, not as your article suggests "to remove him as CEO", but to require him to answer questions relating to unauthorised expenditure referred to above, and other matters.
We appreciate the circumstances under which this article was written and appreciate that mistakes are inevitable. It is in the interest of the company, the shareholders and the wider public that the facts surrounding the company are correctly represented.
Hart Muirhead Fatta, Attorneys-at-Law