11 March '04 - Press Release: Post-Penrose, EMAG seeks board backing of £2 million for pursuit of government compensation.

The minister was disingenuous, given her confirmation that an asset deficit measured in billions existed right to way back to 1990, when she asserted that Lord Penrose had neither found maladministration nor recommended compensation. Hardly surprising since both were explicitly outside his remit.

EMAG revealed one year ago Penrose's core message about "over-bonusing" and a black hole not relating to guarantees (GARs) back for more than a decade. EMAG's forensic accounting study by Burgess Hodgson was achieved from exactly the same data available to the regulators and this is irrefutable proof of maladministration.

Vanni Treves has now said that the way forward is through moral pressure by MPs on the Parliamentary Ombudsman to look again. EMAG does not agree. This looks like diversionary tactic to avoid fulfilling his repeated pledge to sue the government for compensation if Penrose provides the ammunition, which it does. Since the the compromise EMAG's raison d'etre has been the pursuit of government compensation for all policyholders. EMAG is in the High Court fighting to overturn the report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, which astonishingly exonerated the FSA. EMAG has done extensive preparatory work on the paths to making claims in the EU of British government failure. Equitable's chief executive has said that it doesn't have "clean hands" to go to court and that policyholders are better placed. EMAG is best equipped to take up the baton and carry forward the fight against this injustice.

EMAG today announces that it is seeking signatures from more than 1,000 qualified voting members (from the remaining 250,000) for a special resolution that the Society now back EMAG with £2m to develop its multi-pronged campaign for government compensation - the fund to be under the supervision of trustees. To put the figure in context, it is estimated that Vanni Treves has spent £50m of policyholders' funds in three years on internal and external legal fees alone, a tiny proportion of which was on possible pursuit of government. EMAG needs the 1,000 qualified signatures urgently (by March 19th) such that the resolution can be considered at no extra cost to the Society at its AGM on May 19th. An explanatory letter and requisition are available now on EMAG's website at: www.emag.org.uk

EMAG believes that its own standing, for consistently speaking up for all policyholders, has rendered it more trusted than the incumbent board which has consistently repressed helpful information that has only been brought to light through EMAG's persistence and endeavours. Neither Vanni Treves nor his board has ever demonstrated any will to hold government to account, fuelling concern that Vanni Treves has acted effectively as point man to protect the government.

EMAG maintains that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the wrong way forward because her remit and jurisdiction is so hopelessly hamstrung. She cannot comment on the GAD or look into Conduct of Business regulation or even the Society. The PO's existing study has cast doubt on her ability to handle such complex a subject, which is why EMAG has espoused that Lord Penrose should be asked to conduct a swift three month further report into maladministration and fair compensation for policyholders past and present.

For further information:

Paul Braithwaite

11th March, 2004