NBS defends actions

Locked doors yesterday at the NBS

The New Building Society (NBS) today strongly defended the action taken by its staff yesterday in securing the building when an attempt was made to levy on its assets in relation to a $59m court award to its former CEO Maurice Arjoon.

In a statement, the NBS also vowed to “safeguard” the sum in question, noting that an appeal had been lodged with the court over the matter.

A statement from NBS follows:

The Board of Directors

Media Release

Locked doors yesterday at the NBS

The New Building Society Limited (NBS) would like to offer clarification on issues surrounding the storming of its Chief Office by unknown individuals, later identified as marshals of the Supreme Court, lawyers and relatives for Mr. Maurice Arjoon, former CEO of the Society.

At around 12.30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 23, 2018, a group of men came to the back entrance of the Society’s Office and opened the door of a Nissan Vehicle, owned by the Society and driven by an employee. They ordered the employee out of the vehicle and forcibly took the keys and took possession of the said vehicle.

At the same time, persons were seen coming out of a vehicle with building breaking equipment outside of the Society’s building perimeter. This caused some panic among employees of the Society who thought that a robbery was about to take place. Several cashiers moved away from their posts and the management quickly took a decision to lock down the entity. Subsequently, members of the Guyana  Police Force arrived and management was informed that the persons who took possession of the vehicle and were in and around the Head Office were marshals of the Supreme Court.

In the midst of the commotion and the absence of a court order being produced, the management took a decision to safeguard the cash while giving customers an opportunity to orderly leave the bank through one entrance. The NBS at no time prevented persons from leaving the office and in an effort to ensure the safety of cash, there was some inconvenience.

Given the manner in which this operation was conducted and the absence, even up to this point in time, of the  Court Order, it is our view that the management took the right decision to protect the interest of the Society, its staff and customers.

The marshals and others came in unidentified like ‘thieves in the night’ in an unprofessional manner that resulted in the panic, chaos and misunderstanding which took place.

The Society wishes to let it be known that if properly served with any instrument or order of the court, we would readily comply with such an order or instructions.

When our lawyers came to the scene, and in spite of us still not receiving a court order, the Society took the decision to make the payment to Mr. Arjoon. This was from the Society’s funds while we await a refund from the Trust Company (Custodial Trustees) of the Pension Scheme.

The Society wishes to state the following: