http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120520/local/Row-over-bid-to-dropNational-Bank-case.

420437 Sunday, May 20, 2012

Row over bid to drop National Bank case - Meeting of shareholders set
Comment by Jeremy Cassar Torregiani 21st May 2012,, 17:03 hrs CET The issues here are: The role of the central Bank and its abdication from its duties as prescribed in the Central bank of Malta act of 1967. The enactment of XLV 1973 which apart from running counter to our constitution also gave the government appointees who took over the running of the National Bank after it removed the board of directors, the opportunity to break any law relating to the commercial code (Clause 6 XLV 1973), The bogus accounting by the same council of administration who cooked the books to make the capital of shareholders seem like it was eroded. The passing of all the business, assets and liabilities over to the Bank of Valletta. The victimisation of law abiding Maltese citizens by its own government and the political pressure to block a resolution in the name of the National interest. The rule of law applies to all even to government or else we have no freedom and no democracy. Theft is theft no matter who does it. Reading comments made it seems the only point against the shareholders is that if it ran out of liquidity then it means it failed. This is an absolute lie as throughout the crisis liquidity levels were maintained at above the 25% limit. All Banks generate economic activity by lending a multiple of the deposits they collect. Alternatively the economy will stagnate with the have nots never being given a chance to progress. The system of banking therefore is intrinsically fragile which is why central banks were set up to supervise and legislate banking activity and also to offer independent

support in the interest of ALL. The economy, depositors employees and shareholders alike. [At the time of the run on the National Bank of Malta in December 1973], not only was the Central bank under a legal obligation to step in, it was also under the same legal obligation to supervise the banks to ensure that depositors money and the economy were kept safe. That the CBM decided not to fulfill its duties as lender of last resort would only be justified if the CBM had repeatedly issued warnings to NBM that had been ignored. As far as I am aware this was not the case at all. In fact on the contrary the CBM knew only too well that the NBM was experiencing record results. What is the truth is that government, envious of the shareholders decided to rob them off their wealth by changing the law to suit them in the name of national interest. The shareholders on the other hand believing in the rule of law have waited patiently for 40 yrs. They still wait and now that the embarrassment is growing lies are spread by semi informed people who try to justify the theft as business risk. There is a very big difference between the 2 and Malta had a moral as well as a legal obligation to honour it and thereby honour itself. People who do well at the expense of others are not really doing well at all and history has shown that in the end the truth comes to light. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120520/local/Row-over-bid-to-dropNational-Bank-case.420437 Sunday, May 20, 2012 by Christian Peregin

Row over bid to drop National Bank case - Meeting of shareholders set

Former Prime Minister Dom Mintoff in 1973, whose Labour government took over the National Bank of Malta and set up the Bank of Valletta.

The government has tried to drop the 35-year-old court case involving National Bank shareholders by claiming it is time-barred, sparking outrage from those who expected a Nationalist administration to deliver justice, The Sunday Times has learnt.

The governments procrastination is turning it into an accomplice, a partner in crime, with the Mintoff government it so constantly and consistently vilifies, said Milica Micovic, a director of family business B. Tagliaferro and Sons, the largest corporate shareholder of the former bank. She is one of many shareholders still fighting for compensation over the savings and investments they lost when Dom Mintoffs Labour government took over the National Bank of Malta and set up the Bank of Valletta in the early 1970s.

The shareholders will be meeting later this month to discuss what further action to take and galvanise a unified position in their battle for compensation. A plea filed in 2010 by the Attorney Generals office, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, argued the main court case was time-barred when it was filed in 1977. The government quoted articles in the Civil Code stating that to rescind a contract on grounds such as violence, error or fraud, a case must be filed within two years. In instances of violence, this period ends two years after the violence ceases. The main civil case was filed four years after the National Bank of Malta was taken over by Mr Mintoffs government. Two other constitutional cases were filed in 1992 and later amalgamated into the original one. Shareholders must therefore prove in court that the violence and pressure they endured to sign over their shares for nothing in 1973 continued for years. The National Bank saga has long been synonymous with court delays several judges have presided over it but interest was revived recently by Pierre Elluls documentary Dear Dom, which interviewed some of the victims. This is the first time the governments plea, which was filed two years ago, has been reported. Shareholders have been awaiting judgment since November 2010 but sentencing was put off seven times in the past two years, and is now expected on September 27. But shareholders who have kept relatively quiet throughout the long saga are now breaking their silence to condemn successive governments for their handling of the issue. Why should I have any belief in Maltese justice? The PN was elected to deliver justice and values but it has betrayed its moral high ground and its moral mandate, Ms Micovic said. Her uncle was the custodian of the keys to the Tagliaferro bank, which had been bought by the National Bank, becoming a subsidiary company. She was 27 when soldiers and policemen not bank employees or shareholders went to her uncles home at 3 a.m. to warn that if he did not hand over the banks keys, they would arrest him.

I want to put the facts straight, she said, pointing out that former Labour minister Lino Spiteri, the Central Banks head of research at the time, claimed Mr Mintoff had been begged to take over the bank following the run by worried customers desperate to retrieve their money. This is blatantly untrue, she said. Mr Spiteris comments attracted ire from many of the 300 shareholders who were involved in the saga, several of whom inundated The Times letter pages in past weeks. Ms Micovic, 65, said the governments time-barred plea in June 2010 was filed while negotiations were under way to reach an out-of-court settlement. She pointed out that in 2008, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech told Parliament the government had every interest in the cases being decided without delay and without any more time wasted on procedures. But the court case proved the opposite. Its a political issue, she said. Pre-1987 we were promised by future Nationalist ministers and MPs that justice would be served. But as soon as they were elected, they washed their hands of us. [Former Prime Minister] Eddie Fenech Adami simply told us to continue with the court cases. She said the government should have settled with the shareholders as promised, while the economy was going strong. Back then compensation would have been a drop in the ocean, she said, adding the government acted greedily. Labour plundered and successive Nationalist governments continue to enjoy the plunder. If the shares were being voluntarily offered, there would be no need for threats or for police to be sent One reason the government did not want to settle was because it was still clinging to the handsome dividends from its shares in Bank of Valletta, set up by Mr Mintoff in 1974 by taking over National Banks assets, she added. However, even now that the economy was weaker, the government could find the money, just as it did to finance the new Parliament building or pay compensation to bus drivers. This is a government of double standards, she said. This is a travesty of justice and the government should hang its head in shame.

What irked her most was that while in court the government argued there was no violence, pressure or psychological bullying on shareholders to sign over their shares, in public it harped on about the violence committed by the Mintoff government. Part of the hurt in having a case prolonged so much was that many who lived through the period were now dead. The governments plea aggravated this. It seems to be the general perception that there were only a few large shareholders, when in fact there were many small ones; small businesses, widows and pensioners, many of whom lost their pensions, life savings and businesses. Justice has been denied and continues to be denied to all the shareholders of the National Bank of Malta. If the shares were being voluntarily offered, there would have been no need for threats and for policemen to be sent behind our doors late at night and in the early hours of the morning. The Central Bank, which should have been the lender of last resort, failed to do its job under the express instructions of Mr Mintoff, who said he had no interest in saving the shareholders. This was a time when Malta was going through a transition from small, familyowned private banks to the beginning of bank regulation, Ms Micovic said. At the time, her mother was a shareholder in B. Tagliaferro and Sons Ltd, as were her two brothers and their cousin. She confirmed the company had a corporate loan in 1973 that had been fully honoured with interest, despite several official threats by the Mintoff government to call in the loan and unsuccessful attempts to take over the company. For almost 40 years the government enjoyed many millions in dividends from their shareholding in the BoV, with many more millions from selling shares, Ms Micovic said. Although the shareholders have refused to make their demands public, they said their expectations are modest, considering the 58 million paid to drivers to take old buses off the road. The truth is that justice has been denied and continues to be denied to all the shareholders of the National Bank of Malta. Long-running saga of the National Bank

1946. The Anglo Maltese Bank and the Banco di Malta amalgamate under the name of National Bank of Malta. 1949. Sciclunas Bank joins the National Bank to form the National Bank of Malta Group. 1969. B. Tagliaferro & Sons, trading as Tagliaferro Bank Ltd, merge with the National Bank of Malta. Tagliaferro Bank and B. Tagliaferro and Sons hold 30 per cent of the shares. 1973. National Bank Group faces a run on the bank, with depositors withdrawing their savings following rumours the bank was in trouble. The Central Bank refuses to act as a lender of last resort and blocks Barclays and other banks from supporting the Group. The government takes over the business of the bank, assuming its business and assets with no compensation to its 274 shareholders. 1974. The Maltese government establishes Bank of Valletta to take over the business of the National Bank of Malta. BoV sells 9.6 per cent of its shares to the Maltese public. 1976. BoV acquires the National Bank Groups assets and liabilities. 1977. Peter Cassar Torregiani, a former shareholder, files civil court case. 1990. BoV issues 4,900,000 ordinary B shares to the public, which brings the publics ownership to 28.2 per cent and so the government reduces its stake in the Bank of Valletta to 51.2 per cent. 1992. Vincent Curmi and Philip Attard Montalto file constitutional court cases. 1995. The government sells another lot of shares, after it sold 12,000,000 shares to the public, thus reducing its stake from 51.2 per cent to 25.2 per cent. 2012. Former shareholders are still awaiting justice from the courts. -ends-