On the 9th January 2013, the Plaintiffs' Solicitors wrote to the Defendants Solicitors, Zul Rafique & Partners, alleging that Rabindra Nathan of Shearn Delamore, counsel for PwC Malaysia, made manifestly misleading statements in his written submissions. This letter was copied to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
According to our PwC insider, this letter was shown to both Faiz Azmi and Sridharan Nair.
Now, these are very serious allegations. It is very serious for a lawyer to be accused of making misleading statements, which in plain English can be termed as false statements, in written submissions.
Our PwC insider, and we the Group of Six, are very surprised that both Faiz Azmi and Sridharan Nair are not interested in ensuring that Rabindra Nathan denies the allegations made against him in the letter from the Plaintiffs' solicitors.
Instead, what we find is that Sridharan Nair is making the exact same mistake that Johan Raslan made, when the erstwhile Executive Chairman of PwC began making irrelevant tweets in his personal twitter account in an attempt to paint a patina of normalcy on matters, when the allegations of misconduct were coming hard and fast against him and his firm from this blog and elsewhere.
We all know how that worked out for Johan Raslan.
 |
| First tweet in three months comes the day after the last update on this blog |
According to our PwC insider, there was a follow up letter to PWC's solicitors dated 6th February 2013, which was once again copied to the Kuala Lumpur High Court, and even though these letters question the integrity of Sridharan Nair's firm, he seems to be happy to sweep the allegations under the carpet.
 |
| Why hasn't Sridharan Nair instructed his firms counsel, Rabindra Nathan, to deny that he has made manifestly misleading statements and to immediately refute the allegations and accusations in the 9th January and 6th February 2013 letters? |
The only reason, can be that these allegations are true.
There is another big problem for Sridharan Nair and Faiz Azmi to address. On the 5th December 2012, the Kuala Lumpur High Court threw out the evidence given by PwC Partner, Lee Geok Ling. PwC's counsel Rabindra Nathan then stood up to say that he had two other witnesses, under Section 90(A) of the Evidence Act, to reintroduce the documents and was going to inform the Court of the two witnesses on the next day.
On the 6th December 2012, PwC's counsel Rabindra Nathan does not show up in court, instead a Legal Assistant from Zul Rafique & Partners informs the Court that PwC is not calling anymore witnesses for their defence. According to our PwC insider, one of the two witnesses was Dato Ramesh Rajaratnam.
Both Sridharan Nair and Faiz Azmi must answer the following questions:
1. Who from PwC gave instructions to Rabindra Nathan to stand up and inform the Court about the two other witnesses?
2. Who in PwC subsequently made the decision not to allow the two witnesses (including Dato Ramesh Rajaratnam) to take the witness stand?
We, the Group of Six, demand that both Faiz Azmi and Sridharan Nair address these important issues instead of spending their time tweeting about Li Na and Liverpool.
