Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

The suit brought b investment scheme, Cash Plus Ltd., against the Financial Services Commission (FSC) took a dramatic turn yesterday when Cash Plus announced that it was discontinuing the suit.

Cash Plus, instead, took the decision to apply to the FSC to be registered, and assured the court that it was quite prepared to be regulated by the FSC. The application process is to commence next week.

Following the announcement in the Supreme Court, Justice Patrick Brooks ordered that the cease-and-desist order, which was issued by the FSC against Cash Plus on December 29 last year, should remain in force.

Justice Brooks had granted a stay of execution of the cease-and-desist order on January 16 and had imposed some strict conditions, but the judge lifted the stay yesterday.

"I am sure that the FSC will not object to Cash Plus honouring its obligations to existing customers by paying out monies due and owing to them," Acting Solicitor General Patrick Foster, Q.C., told The Gleaner yesterday.

Cash Plus, which began operations five years ago, has approximately 50,000 investors in the scheme. Cash Plus has filed an appeal against the cease-and-desist order.

Wants order lifted

Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels, one of the lawyers representing Cash Plus, said yesterday that Cash Plus was still pursuing the appeal against the cease-and-desist order.

When the suit came for hearing yesterday in the Supreme Court, Mr. Samuels announced that Cash Plus was discontinuing the suit against the FSC. Cash Plus had brought the suit seeking a declaration from the court as to whether the nature of its business came under the Securities Act.

Mr. Samuels asked the judge to take judicial note of the fact that, on Tuesday, the relevant minister had announced in Parliament that there would be a new legislative regime to deal with such matters (alternative investment schemes) which came under the purview of the FSC.

Mr. Foster had opposed the adjournment. He said there were four acts under which registration could take place at the FSC, the Unit Trust Act, the Pensions Act, the Insurance Act and the Securities Act. He said Cash Plus did not say under which of the acts it was applying to be registered. He sai the commitment given by Cash Plus was laudable, that was not sufficient to lead to an adjournment.

The judge said he was not happy with the adjournment because the public was entitled to some certainty.

Mr. Samuels told the court that based on the application to be registered, the public would feel confident that there would be supervision by the FSC.

Cash Plus was ordered to pay $100,000 to the FSC for yesterday's legal costs.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com