Yanson cases: who lied? – 2

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

 

At this stage, we cannot fathom Olivia’s ultimate intentions or those who are possibly manipulating her for personal gain. Perhaps we will know for certain latter as slivers of information are emerging on the plot and the final objective.

An article shared with me last week has these words that can probably apply to the situation: People rely on experts who peddle lies, damned lies…are deranged. Did Olivia decide to sue her children of theft on her own volition or advice of legal experts even if she had to tell a lie? Or is this a joint undertaking?

However, no matter how we look at every angle of this case, it revolves around the ownership of the majority shares of the company. Her case rises and falls on her proof that the settlement of the estate of Ricardo Yanson is null and void. The DOJ already decided the settlement remains binding, but we are discussing this case to fathom other motivations than “what meets the eye.” There’s more to this than what the Y4 lawyers say – to legitimize the takeover of the VTI.

There are many questions about her accusations of theft – her motivations mainly and what she will gain if her children were declared guilty.

When I read about this case, I was puzzled because things had been going well with the family until the audit report of SGV about the missing millions.

Since all the cases revolved around the settlement agreement, I wondered: Did any of the children coerce her to sign the document? If they did, how, when and under what circumstances?

Mysteriously, she never proved she was coerced, so what instigated her to make false claims? Her actuations boggle the mind. I am reminded of the psychological fact – “there is method even in madness.”

There is another puzzle that Olivia and the two other siblings must explain. If the four stole the shares how come that Ginnette and Leo Rey have the same shares as the other four? If they stole the share of Olivia, should not the four have bigger shares and the other two with less?

Or if Olivia wanted to portray the four as greedy thieves, why did the four give the two siblings the same share as they have? That does not look like greed.

Moreover, if the four stole the share of Olivia and from the partition we see that Leo Rey and Ginnette received the same shares as the four, why didn’t Olivia include Ginnette and Leo Rey in her complaint for theft? It stands to simple logic that Olivia should include the two in her complaint which is, I believe, a criminal offense.

Then there is the question. Since the settlement until last year, Leo Rey was president of the VTI. Why did he not act to correct the alleged absence of the name of Olivia in the annual General Information Sheet submitted to the SEC for years? Surely, as company president, Leo Rey knows the content of the GIS. Did he at least ask the other children for an explanation?

We go further. Every year they have a stockholders meeting. Why didn’t Leo Rey and Ginnette question the membership that excluded Olivia? Surely as Olivia’s favorite children, they owe it to her to protect their mother’s interest, but did they make even a squawk? That they did not raise a voice to protest and if the allegation of Olivia is correct, is not the Y2 treacherous to their mother, enjoying the loot stolen from her?

A reflection of a sound mind will inevitably raise these questions. Olivia is an intelligent person and ought to know or must have known that every year she was not on the list of stockholders of VTI. Why didn’t she complain at the first instance? Is not silence consent?

The only answer is that she knew she was no longer a shareholder since she signed the amicable settlement of the Yanson properties including the VTI shares. After all, she had more than enough from the other properties. So why this recent obsession to take over VTI?

Moreover, how can the four be liable for theft and not the other two favored and beloved children who also benefitted equally from her alleged thievery?

Continued tomorrow.