Page 173 - Combined file Solheim

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

 MJC repeatedly invited Mr Solheim (see for example Bates No 258) to produce his
own evidence that his insurance claims were legitimate (so that MJC was in a position
to negotiate on LPJS’s behalf) but he refused to do so by claiming that all
documentation is privileged or not relevant; Page | 4

 Counsel should consider whether it is legitimate, and in both party’s interests, to let
“sleeping dogs” lie. There is no requirement on LPJS to make any official report .
10
5. LOANS
 If the £500,000 was a loan, why did Mr Solheim never ask for a single word of
documentation: especially when he knew from LPJS’s will that he did not and would
never have an interest in Nutley Place? It defies belief, but the whole point was that
he wanted no documentation so that his interest in the £500k was severed:

 Why did Mr Solheim doggedly refuse to say before or in the Final Hearing that the
£500k was a loan when it was 100% in his interest to do so. (His excuse was that he
had to look after the dog: which he didn’t);

 His refusal to give evidence was one of the main reasons the court concluded the
£500k was a gift and savaged LPJS’ lifelong maintenance;

 His earnings and assets schedule (for the Final Hearing - Bates No 059) states that the
£500k loan could be drawn down for living expenses: he knew this was untrue. It was
a loan that never was ;
11
 Mr Solheim may have contrived his absence so LPJS would lose at the Final Hearing;
thereby forcing her to sell the house and redeem the mortgage.

6. WE CANNOT BE SURE THE AIG SETTLEMENT IS HONEST
 In 50 years of dealing with and for insurance companies and writing books on the
12
subject MJC has never seen such a friendly, fast and generous settlement;

 Why did easyJet not disclose the policy to KN when repeatedly asked to do so?

 James Beaver in AIG’s claim department (since jailed for fraud by skimming and
diverting claims) was active during the relevant period and may have adjusted Mr
Solheim’s claim; BUT WE DON’T KNOW THIS FOR SURE!

 Mr Solheim says settlement was made at £534k but he only banked £525+. Did he
allow Mr Beaver or someone else to skim off the difference as a bribe? This is a
serious and potentially catastrophic concern that should be resolved unless Counsel
advises to the contrary;
 There are also cheques paid by Mr Solheim at the relevant time that could have been
bribes;

Bates Number Bates No173
E:\COBASCO CURRENT\LOUS DIVORCE\CURRENT PAPERS\Sigve Solheim litigation\Short note for MF rev1.docx