Pro-Active Management Systems agreed to Government's terms for an arbitration hearing three weeks ago, its advisor Julian Hall said yesterday - yet Government continues to delay and still has not agreed to ground rules for the arbitration.

Speaking from London last night, Mr. Hall wondered if Government was “intentionally trying to invite an avalanche of claims against Pro-Active in hopes that the company will be forced to go into liquidation,” leaving Government to negotiate with only an accountant “hand-picked” by Government's lawyers, Conyers, Dill & Pearman.

A slew of claims were brought against Pro-Active in the months after the company's contract to build the new senior secondary school was terminated last summer. Yet another claim - from a masonry sub-contractor - was filed on February 15.

“We are constantly fending off creditors who are understandably getting a little impatient,” Mr. Hall said.

Yet the terms of the contract state that if the company is terminated, the relationships between Pro-Active and the sub-contractors automatically cease as Government takes over, he said.

That means that it is Government who owes the sub-contractors the money, not Pro-Active, Mr. Hall claimed - and every single one of the claims brought against Pro-Active should in fact be brought against Government instead.

“It is shameful to see a labour government behaving in this way,” he said last night. “Why are they dragging their heels? We're ready.”

Pro-Active sent a “reminder” to CD&P just two days ago asking again for Government to send documents to the company to sign so that the arbitration can be constituted, he said.

If Government agrees to the ground rules - as Pro-Active has - Mr. Hall maintained the arbitration could be constituted by April.

The company “really does not want to argue with Government in the media”, Mr. Hall added. “But Pro-Active has agreed to all the terms ... even those they found disagreeable.”

One such “disagreeable” term was Government's stipulation that the arbitration be held in private, he said.

Pro-Active balked at that for two reasons:

1) the company was backed with Bermuda Industrial Union money, and the thousands of union members involved had a right to observe the arbitration; and

2) Government was spending the tax-payers' money.

“If they have nothing to hide, why would they not want it out in the open?” Mr. Hall asked.

In the interests of expediency, however, Pro-Active capitulated on that term and agreed to hold the arbitration in private. Even so, Government continues to delay, he added.

“We know the strength of our claim,” Mr. Hall said. “We will not allow this company to be put into liquidation before the arbitration hearing is finalised.”

Pro-Active does not plan to wait until construction at the site is completed, he said, adding: “Had Government not terminated the contract it would have been completed by now, there's no question of that.”

Pro-Active will also have the final report of the independent assessors in hand shortly, he said. The company will not release any information from that report until Government agrees to the terms of the arbitration, however.

“They can run, but they cannot hide,” Mr. Hall finished. “They cannot hide forever.”