Andrew Farthing on the ECForumâ€œThe ECF Board first discussed this matter at a meeting on 26th February 2011, at the instigation of its President. Following this, I consulted with the ECFâ€™s legal adviser, David Anderton, on the potential risks and how these could be managed. In due course, the Board decided by a majority e-mail vote on 4th March to authorise the initiation of legal action.â€
However the CAS report clearly states that part of the action taken by Georgia and the ECF was initiated on February 24th. (See Sec III para18). Indeed the initial required fee was paid to ensure the case proceeded.
I have asked a Non-Exec Director to investigate this apparent discrepancy. I did so on Tuesday. I have also asked two Directors if they were aware of this when making their decision. I have not received a reply giving an answer. I have not even been informed if a full investigation is taking place. The two Directors concerned have informed me that they have passed my concerns on to the rest of the Board.
It is possible that Andrew in his statement above meant that the authorisation to initiate the legal action started by CJ De Mooi was given retrospectively. However, if that is the case then why was this not made clear in Andrewâ€™s statement? I certainly assumed, as have others that I spoke to, that no action took place prior to 4th March. It also seems totally irresponsible to initiate such action prior to obtaining legal advice.
An obvious question which I would like answered is â€œDid the President have the authority to initiate such a case without the prior consent of the Board?â€ I cannot see how this is possible but am willing to be corrected.
If the President has exceeded his authority is his position tenable?
I believe that I have given the Board sufficient time to make a statement on this matter before I went public. I think it is regrettable that they have chosen not to do so.