FORMER EMPLOYEES OF BANK FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRCUTION IN COURT

ONE HUNDRED and seventy four former employees of the Bank for Housing and Construction (BHC) have sued Kwame Pianim, a management and investment consultant, New World Investment Ltd, United Bank for Africa Ghana Ltd (UBA) and four others at the Commercial division of the High Court seeking damages for the breach of their statutory rights.
The rest of the defendants are Ben Amagatse, Kofi Amo-Addai and Hilda Malm, all members or trustees of the Consortium Investment Trust (CIT) under a trust deed dated April 5, 2000, and put together to receive funds belonging to the members, and Unique Access Properties Limited as a co-defendant.
The plaintiffs accused the defendants of breach of their duties as trustees and using the trust reposed in them to acquire personal shares and profits to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
But the defendants have denied the averments and stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any claims.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order to strip the defendants of the positions they occupy and recover all monies and assets accruing to them at their expense because the purported dilution of shares held by the plaintiffs was wrongful.
They are further seeking for an order to the defendants to account for accruing income from the use of the assets purchased in the name of the CIT, to which the plaintiffs belong, among other reliefs.
After going through a mini trial, the court is expected to today (Thursday) begin the hearing into the issues raised by the parties.
The plaintiffs in an amended statement of claim said they were all former employees of the liquidated BHC and members of the CIT, which was set up in 2000 to take-over parts of assets of BHC while Mr Pianim was a management and investment consultant as well as CEO of New World Investments and Board Chairman of UBA.
According to them, the co-defendant had been purportedly promoted and registered by Mr Pianim to receive or hold assets originally acquired with the support and contributions of the plaintiffs.
They said that prior to the liquidation of the BHC, Mr Pianim was introduced to the representatives of the unionised staff BHC of which the plaintiffs were part and tasked him with the duty of securing a worker/management buy-out deal with the government in order to save the jobs of as many of their members.
They said that when that arrangement failed, the workers with assurances of support from the government decided to pool their end of service benefits under the management of New World Investment to buy some assets of BHC for onward transfer to a new bank to be launched through the promotional efforts of CIT members and Mr Pianim and New World Investment.
The plaintiffs said that under the trust deed New World Investment was appointed as fund manager with the responsibility for managing the resources pooled by CIT pending the incorporation and licensing of the proposed bank.
According to plaintiffs, funds amounting to ¢1,098,035,000.00 being their end of service benefits were entrusted to New World Investment Mr Amagatse, Mr Amo-Addai and Ms Malm first for investment in money market instruments and then later equity investment in UBA (formerly standard trust bank ltd).
They said that by Mr Pianim’s representation to the CIT, an amount of ¢600,000,000.00 was transferred to the UBA in return for shares.
Mr Pianim, they said, in a letter dated June 23, 2000 introduced himself to Price Waterhouse Coopers as the investment advisors of the CIT and promoters of UBA and further disclosed the formation and incorporation of the proposed bank, which required that the allocated assets be put in the name of the bank.
The plaintiffs said they were unaware of any meeting to admit the Nigerian entity in UBA and the allotment of its shares and that the terms and conditions under which the Nigerian entity was admitted into the bank was never disclosed to members of CIT although a letter dated December 21, 2002, from STB Capital Markets Ltd referred to an agreement to be entered into with New World Investment.
They said that aside the board of directors of the bank was constituted without any representation for members of the CIT.
According to them, Mr Pianim breached his obligations as a trustee by using it as a means to derive personal benefits by accepting and taking a post of Chairman in the bank and also holding shares in his own name.
The defendants responded that save that Mr Pianim was selected as the Chairman of the Board of UBA by its strategic investors on the basis of his professional expertise, experience, personal integrity and credentials, there was no obligation or understanding that precluded him from investing alongside CIT or accepting a seat on the Board.
They said that save that the worker-management buy out failed, the plaintiffs initially pooled their end-of-service benefits for the purpose of that deal as stated in the trust deed of the CIT and that sections of the rules of the CIT incorporated inn the trust deed, membership and participation in the trust was no guarantee of employment, immediate or otherwise in the proposed bank.
The defendants said that the CIT was established only as an investment vehicle for the ex-workers of the liquidated BHC and by the objects of the trust deed, the trustees were to invest the contributions of members of the CIT towards the worker-management buy out arrangement in prudent investment and money market instruments.