Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang has for the second time approved the sale of Clico’s (Guyana) immovable assets, upholding a previous decision he gave but varying the order to include strict adherence to court supervision of the sales.

Judicial Manager of Clico (Guyana) Maria van Beek had applied for the order two weeks ago and it was initially granted. However, strong objections by Clico’s attorneys resulted in the Justice Chang executing a stay on the order.

The legal arguments in the case involving the sale of Clico’s assets ended on Wednesday and the Chief Justice upheld his previous decision. However, he varied the order that was initially granted to ensure that van Beek obtains the court’s permission before any sale is made final.

Justice Chang’s initial order on June 11 approved the sale of Clico’s (Guyana) immovable properties and allowed also for the revenue earned to be placed in the statutory fund for the benefit of policyholders. The order had also allowed for proceeds from the sales to be put away to meet current and future obligations of the insurance company.

The permission to sell off Clico’s assets had been sought by van Beek, who recently advised in a report to the court that the company is now in a state where it is to be wound up, adding that “liquidation of the company may be regarded as the option most advantageous to the general interests of the policy holders”.

But attorneys for Clico (Guyana) had argued against any sale of the company’s properties and insisted that the insurance company is still in a position to operate some lines of business.

Clico’s attorneys argued during the brief hearing on the sale of the company’s assets that van Beek closed all of its business offices without a single attempt to operate any line or class of insurance business. They had argued that the sale of the assets is disadvantageous to the company and likely to cause extreme hardship should the claims of the Judicial Manager be proved unsubstantiated.

But Judicial Manager said the company suffered a severe blow with the US$34M “badly invested” in the Bahamas, and a great number of policy surrenders earlier this year. She also refuted claims that the company had great liquid cash.

She said also that the proposal to sell the company’s assets was in the interest of policyholders and that such is the primary objective of judicial management as set out in the Insurance Act 1998.