| Always a headline ahead, around the world, Bahamas, Bahamas news, ewnews, Eyewitness News Online, ewnews.com |
NASSAU, BAHAMAS — ArawakX’s chairman and chief executive has roundly rejected assertions by the Securities Commission that the crowd-funding platform was insolvent to the extent of $2.4 million and guilty of any regulatory breaches or irregularities.
D’Arcy Rahming senior, ArawakX’s chairman and chief executive, alleged in a September 27, 2023, affidavit that the regulator, following an 11-month investigation, had failed to afford the company a substantive and fair hearing over the allegations against it. Rahming also pushed back against the regulator’s insolvency assertion, arguing that the regulator is aware that the company has “significant commercial prospects.”
The Securities Commission has asserted that there is “more than sufficient evidence” to justify the winding-up of ArawakX, citing its concerns over the company’s solvency as well as alleged governance irregularities and regulatory breaches. The SCB, on September 15, petitioned the court for the wind up of MDollaz Ltd trading as ArawakX, with the court hearing the matter inter partes and adjourning the case to October 13.
Rahming, in his affidavit, contended that the Securities Commission has failed to present or articulate a substantive complaint against the company with respect to its interactions with investors, staff or the public. He suggested that the regulator was fully aware of the private dispute between ArawakX and James Campbell’s investor in the company, who Rahming alleged is seeking to gain control of the company. Rahming described the wind-up action as an “ambush” and contended that the regulator’s insolvency case is based on “wholly imagined” and “hypothetical” claims by Mr Campbell.
Rahming asserted that the regulator has failed to demonstrate why a regulated return to operation was not a viable path forward.
“The respondent also rejects the suggestion that it has been unable to sufficiently provide reasons and/or documentation to satisfy the Commission that it can remediate these issues,” said Rahming in his affidavit.
Pushing back against the regulator’s claims of insolvency, Rahming stated: “The respondent is a company with lucrative financial prospects, with no pending financial claims or complaints against it, and with successful litigation before the Supreme Court against its bankers in the midst of significant settlement discussions. A winding-up Order would be an unreasonable, unlawful and disproportionate result in all the circumstances and damage the markets built by the respondent and its issuers and subscribers who wish to continue to engage with the respondent and its markets.”
