Price Waterhouse Coopers East Caribbean Firm pays a “Psycholinguistics expert” CAD $28,320 to defend Peter Simmons!
When Peter Simmons used threatening language against a Canadian lawyer, and indicated that a professor at UWI would lose his job if he continued to testify, he did not know that he was being tape-recorded. This tape is evidence in the Canadian action, a case involving Kingsland Estates Limited. Why did Price Waterhouse pony up CAD $28,320 to Forensic Psycholinguistics, LLC to defend the brother of the Chief Justice? (Yes, I have posted a copy of the bill a few paragraphs below.)
What is the Connection between Peter Simmons and PwC?
One connection is that Peter Simmons and PwC are both defendants in the Canadian action. Could there be more connections?
Businesses like PwC are managed to make a profit. Accepted practices dictate that when a business expends a large sum of money on an item, this expenditure must be justified. Some benefit, be it tangible or intangible, is expected from the investment.
If Simmons were found guilty of making telephone threats, it should not affect disinterested parties! Why would PwC, the auditor of Kingsland care about what Simmons does?
PwC’s concern and financial support for Simmons may be logically construed to imply a material connection between the auditor and Peter Simmons.
| What is the connection between Simmons and PwC? |
![]() |
-
Peter Simmons
Peter Simmons was a principal of Simmons Bannister and Greaves (SBG). SBG was involved in secret negotiations with at least some of the directors of Kingsland Estates Limited (Kingsland). They made a lowball offer for Kingsland. This purchase was opposed by Marjorie Knox, holder of a seventh of Kingsland’s shares. More of the SBG offer can be read on my expose on SBG. My SBG revelations appeared to touch a raw nerve in Barbados. The violent reaction was remarkable as the general Barbadian public has no emotional stake in this issue. The article precipitated many vile threats, including one demanding an apology, and another threatening to burst open my elderly mother’s head with a big rock!
Peter Simmons is a former High Commissioner and a brother to the Honourable Sir David Simmons, the Chief Justice of Barbados and a co-defendant in the Canadian action.
The External Auditors of Kingsland
For many years the accounting firm, Coopers and Lybrand (C&L), performed two important functions for Kingsland: internal accountant and external auditor. In other words, C&L kept the books as accountant, and the later checked the books for accuracy as external auditor. At some point in time C&L became PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and assumed responsibility for Coopers and Lybrand’s accounts. (The full name on the court document is PricewaterhouseCoopers Eastern Caribbean Firm.) So under one name or other, as auditors they would have had continuous responsibility to the shareholders over the relevant time period. Mrs. Knox and her family held the opinion that the audited reports were not only infrequent but misleading.
Different Interests
When Simmon’s company was trying to buy all of Kingsland’s shares for a low price, Coopers and Lybrand were auditing the books and had the responsibility of ensuring that Kingsland’s shareholders had an accurate picture of the financial status of the company.
To put it simply, Simmons had an interest to bargain for a low price and the auditors should have had a duty to inform the shareholders of the financial condition and worth of the company. C&L produced no figures for years prior to the SBG offer.
Auditor helps Simmons - never advanced this kind of help for Kingsland audit!
As far as I know, PwC never gave this kind of help to the Kingsland’s shareholders who wanted figures! Audited Financial Statements for Kingsland were produced by Coopers & Lybrand in 1989 for period 1983-89. Six years in arrears? Since then, there have been many delays, including, to the best of my knowledge, no Financials for the past three years! Kingsland was doing little business with the land allowed to run to bush. An audit would have been simple and inexpensive, but both Coopers and PwC appeared to be unwilling to advance any resources towards this service. Now the purse strings are miraculously released in defense of another defendant’s phone call!
Disclaimer: We wish to remind our readers that while we quote public court documents, the contents of these documents should be taken as unproven allegations. What we state here is our opinion. On the other hand, we welcome and value comments. Under the circumstances, anonymous comments are most welcome. The judge’s ruling on this matter will be posted after I post a transcript of the call. Iain Deane may have already posted it.
- Previous:
- Next:





14 users commented in " Peter Simmons’ phone call - Part III - Why did PwC pay a “Psycholinguistics expert” Big Bucks to defend Simmons? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback[…] thing when … Posted in June 20th, 2008 by admin in Humor … someone has to pay over BDS $56,000 for an “expert” to explain to a judge that you were not making […]
[…] Keltruth Blog publishes the court documents that prove it: Peter Simmons’ phone call - Part III - Why did PwC pay a “Psycholinguistics expert” Big Bucks … […]
[…] see that Keltruth and its subsidiary, Barbados Free Press, have again “spouted”. This time, they have […]
I don’t understand. you have produced no evidence except your say-so that this charge is true.
Justice, I think the invoice speaks for itself…
How is that proof that it was paid by PWC, anon?
Justice,
Sorry, but I was away for the weekend.
It is common knowledge that Gerald Ranking is the lawyer representing PwC.
Here is a page from one of the court docs:
http://keltruthblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/6/19/PwC.jpg
But Keltruth, an invoice is a demand for payment from the addressee. PWC is not the addressee. Ranking is. You don’t address an invoice to a lawyer on behalf of a client. Is it that Ranking is Simmons’ Canadian lawyer?
So any invoice to Ranking we must assume it is paid for by PwC
Great logic
Yes that makes perfect sense
I made a challenge on BFP to produce the evidence and guess what?
straight to moderation
Amused said:
“So any invoice to Ranking we must assume it is paid for by PwC”
PwC is not either Simmons’ lawyer. If it were not authorised to be paid by PwC, it would imply a fiduciary relationship between Rankin and a third party. This relationship would have have been declared to the court.
In the absence of any such declaration, yes we must assume that PwC authorised the payment. As it stands now, the judge has ruled that the plaintiff must share the cost of the report, with the plaintiff paying most of it. This is under appeal.
What evidence would you like, Amused?
I have 2 sets of shelves of evidence. I should be able to find something for you.
evidence that PwC bore the cost of this invoice.
You have provided an invoice, nothing else.
Interesting information on PWC. What was the end result of this invoice dispute/controversy?
Leave A Reply