SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Life Energy & Technology Holdings, Inc. (LETH)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Wayne Rumball who started this subject10/24/2003 8:29:27 PM
From: scion  Read Replies (1) of 266
 
Is this ON TOPIC?

Last week Mr Reynolds, who is also chairman of New York-listed energy company Life Energy Technology Holdings (LETH), said: "There was no conflict of interest."

As he bowed out of Bula last year, Mr Reynolds said he would be pursuing the Bahrain deal with LETH. Last week Mr Reynolds said that LETH had offered to purchase, for $1.5 m Bula's interest in the Bahrain investment but this offer was rejected by Bula's board. Asked if, in fact, any of Bula's $1.5m had been invested in LETH shares at any stage, he replied: "Not at all. Not at all, no."

The new chief executive of Bula, Viscount Tim Torrington, has said that he has not had a satisfactory explanation of the terms of the Bahrain deal.

"I don't know if there ever was a deal," Mr Torrington said.

A conflict has arisen as to whether the $1.5m was refundable. Both parties had signed an agreement apparently confirming a refund of the investment in the event that a project was not sourced by the first anniversary of the agreement.

To date, over a year later, only $375,000 has been refunded by the general. Last week Mr Reynolds said: "Bula will have to tell shareholders why they accepted $375,000 when they had two offers of $1.5m from LETH."

The Sunday Independent has learned that there exist two apparently contradictory documents on this issue of whether the $1.5m was refundable. These documents are now with the ODCE.

It has also been learned that the ODCE is in possession of several cheques drawn against Bula in favour of Mr Reynolds, his wife, and another company of which he is a director. These cheques were not signed by two people, in breach of a Bula mandate to the bank concerned.

Yesterday, Mr Reynolds admitted he had drawn these cheques in breach of a company mandate, but said he had only done so because the designated co-signatory, Bula director Omas Yazigi, was out of the country.

"You could try to argue that that's outside company mandate, but it's not outside running a business," Mr Reynolds said. "It is perfectly normal, because you can't leave a business running without cheques." When Albert Reynolds stepped down as Bula chairman, the Sunday Independent's Business Editor, Shane Ross, wrote: "Albert was a good choice for chairman of Bula. He is a gambler. He cuts corners. He has a healthycontempt for red tape."

Senator Ross wrote: "Reynolds is certainly reckless, but this is just what Bula needed . . . He is a doer and a dealer. He is impatient, both with people and bureaucracy."

unison.ie
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext