he will press a long-running case in the Court of Appeals against a disputed shareholder this March.

The Supreme Court has denied Caliban leave to appeal last year's Supreme Court ruling against the company, but lawyer Alan Dunch of Mello, Hollis, Jones & Martin has said that the case will be taken directly to the higher court.

Mr. Dunch said, "We have already filed an application with the Court of Appeals and they will hear it March 6.'' The shareholder is former Belvedere vice president and treasurer Vanessa Ellen (Johnson) Thomas, who left the company near the end of 1992.

The property & casualty insurer's parent company had taken out a writ to force her to sell shares back to the company as per a 1990 agreement.

But Ms Thomas, represented by Mark Diel of Smith, Barnard & Diel, late last year won a Supreme Court judgement delivered by Justice Meerabux on her application to block the writ against her.

In 1994, two years after leaving the company, Ms Thomas received a letter from Caliban asking that the shares be returned, as per the 1990 agreement, for a specified price.

One clause in the agreement requires a shareholder no longer employed by the company to sell the shares back to the company, immediately after receiving written notice to do so by the board of directors.

But Justice Meerabux ruled that Ms Thomas was no longer controlled by the agreement because it said: "A shareholder shall cease to be a party thereto upon the termination of his employment...'' After that ruling, Ms Thomas sued the company for hundreds of thousands of dollars in dividends she said she didn't receive as a shareholder. But Mr.

Dunch argued that she ceased being a shareholder more than two years before.

He said, "Ms Thomas was bound to honour the terms of an agreement among the management shareholders which gave the company the ability to call upon Ms Thomas to return her shares to the company at the company's option.'' Caliban said once they called upon her to transfer the shares, she was no longer a shareholder.

The company sought to obtain the shares at their September 1992 value. But Ms Thomas said it would mean the company gets the shares for less than $15,000, although they were worth at least $50,000 when she obtained them.

She said she discovered late last year that two dividends, totaling $72.48 per share were paid out last year.

She has asked the court to order that she be paid dividends, amounting to at least $362,400, for her 5,000 shares.

Ms Thomas said she has offered to sell the shares to the company at better than the 90 percent of book value that was the standard for others selling back to the company.

COURT OF APPEALS COA