Page 172 - Combined file Solheim

URGENT
Note for Marina Faggianato for the round table meeting
Confidential in contemplation of proceedings

 LPJS asserts that she had discretion to reclassify the £500k gift as a loan without Mr
Solheim’s agreement and - since he would not commit either way - to revert after he
flounced off;

Page | 3
 Mr Solheim knew the £500k was blocked in LPJS’s Barclays Woolwich account from
the moment he deposited it and could not be drawn down for living expenses. His
schedule of “earnings and assets” (Bates No 059) for the Final Hearing was perjurious
and could not be presented to the court. This cost her the case.

4. FRAUD HYPOTHESIS AND RETENTION OF THE £500K
Marina has implied that is it inconsistent for LPJS to allege fraud and hope to keep the £500k.

This is an over-simplification and the correct position appears to be:

LPJS’s probably position
Pos Mr Solheim In reality (Insurer’s position) (Subject to further legal advice)
believed
a b
A1 One or more Fundamental dishonesty which Some or all want their LPJS cannot keep
claims was taints all claims money back
fraudulent Not interested LPJS can keep
A2 AIG claim is false (Beaver AIG wants money back LPJS cannot keep
bribery) Not interested; as is LPJS can keep
A3 AIG claim ok but fraud against Diamond not interested LPJS can keep
Diamond (and possibly Hiscox Diamond, Hiscox, Potentially
and Cirencester) easyJet or Cirencester catastrophic
want money back and LPJS cannot keep
are joined by AIG in a
fundamental dishonesty
action
7
B1 All claims were All claims ok Insurers not interested LPJS can keep
genuine (Which Insurers wants back Not relevant
B2 he knew they Not interested Not interested LPJS can keep
B3 were not) Allege fraud Insurers want money Negotiation
back

 As a result of MJC’s low-key enquiries we appear to be in row A3, above, where AIG
has indicated that its file is closed. The Hampshire office of Diamond’s solicitors
(Horwich Farelly: =HF which handled the claim), having been advised of Mr
Solheim’s known claims, has been unwilling to discuss the facts and appears to have
no current interest;

 The outcome would have been entirely different had MJC wanted – using Counsel’s
words - to “dob” Mr Solheim . MJC did everything reasonably possible to establish
8
the facts without inflaming the renewed interest of the insurers .
9
 MJC’s objective was to risk assess the probability that LPJS would negotiate a
settlement, but have it overtaken by proceeds of crime actions:

Bates Number Bates No172
E:\COBASCO CURRENT\LOUS DIVORCE\CURRENT PAPERS\Sigve Solheim litigation\Short note for MF rev1.docx