This page provides Regulatory news filings submitted by issuers listed on the BSX. Please note the BSX is not responsible for the content, accuracy or completeness of announcements filed by issuers and disclaims all liability for any loss arising from reliance on information contained within issuer announcements.

Hamilton, Bermuda – April 13, 2017 – In a filing with the Bermuda Stock Exchange (“BSX”) Helix provided an additional response to Offshore Alert allegations. The full filing stated:

 

Further to our release of 2 November 2016 wherein we advised that Privilege Wealth PLC’s UK counsel had commenced proceedings to prosecute a claim of libel against Mr David Marchant following allegations made in internet posts by Mr David Marchant on 19 and 20 October 2016 on website Offshore Alert, Helix Investment Management SLP (“Helix”) can confirm that Privilege Wealth PLC duly issued proceedings of libel against Mr Marchant and judgement in default was entered in favour of Privilege Wealth PLC on 22 December 2016 in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division. Privilege Wealth PLC were represented by Lewis Silkin LLP.

 

The judgement confirms that Privilege Wealth PLC has been unjustly misrepresented by Mr David Marchant and Google subsequently agreed to remove the offending article from its google.co.uk domain.

 

Having been successful in obtaining the Order, a hearing was set for 9 March 2017 to assess the amount of the award of damages based upon the Particulars of Claim and the supporting witness statements.

 

Privilege Wealth PLC claimed £50,000 of damages against Mr Marchant. On considering the matter the Judge went on to assess and award damages of £80,000 against Mr Marchant. Privilege Wealth’s barrister noted that to his knowledge this “award of general damages to a corporate claimant is higher than any other reported decision of a Judge to date”.

 

On 12 April 2017 the court released a copy of the judgement which Privilege Wealth has shared with Helix.

 

Noticeably in the judgement the Judge noted paragraph 9

 

It is plain from the unchallenged evidence of Mr. Munnelly that the business is far from being a fraud.  Its customer service centre in Panama manages loan portfolios of over US$70 million and the group has over two hundred staff.  It holds the lease of substantial premises in Panama, from which it operates, and it has agreed terms for an expansion.  The expansion has been delayed by a fall in new investment.

 

In paragraph 15 (c)

 

I will mention one further matter which is that it is apparent that the defendant intends to continue to publish the allegations complained of on his website and it would appear that reputational and financial harm is likely to continue in the future. 

 

In Para 16

 

The damages awarded are not susceptible to precise calculation, but this case calls for a substantial award, both to compensate the claimant and to provide a public marker that the allegations were untrue.  That is all the more important when the defendant is beyond the reach of any power of the court to restrain publication or continuing publication and is, effectively, hiding behind his US domicile.  To put the same point another way, he is defying a legitimate claim on the basis that he can do so with impunity.  That emerges from the letter which I have already quoted and also from material on his website which says this:

 

"British firm, Privilege Wealth Plc's libel complaint at the High Court in London doesn’t even need to be defended, because foreign defamation judgments are unenforceable in the USA."

 

The Judge quotes another previously decided case in noting:

 

"Any award of general damages should be sufficient to enable the claimant to counter the defendant's campaign and show beyond argument to those who operate in their area of business that the allegations against them are baseless."

 

And the Judge goes on to conclude:

 

That same aim must be reflected in my award also because the allegations in this case are equally baseless.  Taking all those matters into account, the award that I make is £80,000.

 

As anticipated by the Judge, and despite the Order against him, Mr Marchant has recently published further harmful allegations against Privilege Wealth on his website.

 

Privilege Wealth considers the new publications to form part of the same attack and will seek to enforce the judgement and award of damages it has already been awarded in the matter.

 

Helix has continued to monitor the collateral coverage of its loan to Privilege Wealth PLC and in November 2016 Privilege Wealth posted additional collateral to Helix and has ensured that the required collateral coverage ratio has at all times been duly exceeded.