The Big Bailout of the Eurozone (Another crisis coming? - Seriously)

[All of a Sludden]

Seán FitzPatrick not guilty on all counts in Anglo trial.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0416/609310-anglo-irish-bank-trial/

[orangeman]

Seán FitzPatrick not guilty on all counts in Anglo trial.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0416/609310-anglo-irish-bank-trial/

It wouldn't fit if you were the cynical type.

[armaghniac]

A jury found that Mr FitzPatrick's behaviour had not been illegal

The point here is not that Fitzpatrick was not at fault, but that the law was inadequate. No bank should allowed lend money to buy its own shares, especially a large part of its own shares.

[supersarsfields]

I don't think it's a case that the court ruled that the bank did nothing illegal, just that Seanie wasn't involved in the alledged share support. The jury could still find McAteer & Whelan guilty of share support. I'd imagine we'll hear more on those tomorrow.

[johnneycool]

I don't think it's a case that the court ruled that the bank did nothing illegal, just that Seanie wasn't involved in the alledged share support. The jury could still find McAteer & Whelan guilty of share support. I'd imagine we'll hear more on those tomorrow.

Maybe one of those two will take a fall, but its hard to believe that the chairman of the bank didn't know about the loans to prop up the share price and at least give his tacit approval.

The irish people will be taken for a ride yet again by the ruling classes.

[supersarsfields]

I wouldn't disagree with that, ignorance is no protection from the law. But it was clear during the trial Seanie was the least involved out of the three.

Wonder will we get the verdicts on the other two today.

Edit

Guilty on the Maple 10 but not guilty on The Quinn Loans. I'd be interested to hear what the difference was in relation to Share support?

[supersarsfields]

Guilty on the Maple 10 but not guilty on The Quinn Loans. I'd be interested to hear what the difference was in relation to Share support?

(Re-posted as edit doesn't update)

[orangeman]

Guilty on the Maple 10 but not guilty on The Quinn Loans. I'd be interested to hear what the difference was in relation to Share support?(Re-posted as edit doesn't update)

Interesting alright.

[Franko]

Guilty on the Maple 10 but not guilty on The Quinn Loans. I'd be interested to hear what the difference was in relation to Share support?(Re-posted as edit doesn't update)

Interesting alright.

The cynic in me would say a few billion euro in lost funds to the lads in Leinster house.

[armaghniac]

Guilty on the Maple 10 but not guilty on The Quinn Loans. I'd be interested to hear what the difference was in relation to Share support?

(Re-posted as edit doesn't update)

The difference was that the Maple 10 only had to pay back 25% of the loan if the shares went bellyup, unlike the Quinn loans, so it was not a normal transaction.

[supersarsfields]

The charge was for share support, IE what the loans were used for. Both sets of loans were to prevent the share price dropping.

[muppet]

The charge was for share support, IE what the loans were used for. Both sets of loans were to prevent the share price dropping.

My guess is that effectively Anglo already owned the Quinn Group by then, thus they owned the problem. They simply restructured their own exposure to Sean Quinn's gamble.

The Maple 10 however were outsiders enticed to help by the offer of the unusually low recourse arrangement, as pointed out by Armaniac above.

[supersarsfields]

But surely prior to the loans Anglo had no ownership of the Quinn Group. Anglo only received ownership of the QG after the loans had been put through. (Or at least this is my understanding) The problem prior to that was with SQ and the Broker houses.

[muppet]

But surely prior to the loans Anglo had no ownership of the Quinn Group. Anglo only received ownership of the QG after the loans had been put through. (Or at least this is my understanding) The problem prior to that was with SQ and the Broker houses.

I can see an argument for that, but then there is that letter sent by McCaffrey apparently on behalf of SQ, when the margin calls started.

[supersarsfields]

My timeline is a bit hazy, when was that letter issued? I thought it was after some of the loans had been extended? But in any regards wasn't that in relation to receiving the loans for the margin calls, which would still leave it open to Share support.

I'd imagine the Quinns would have wanted  guilty on all counts charge. But failing that, they definitely didn't want a not guilty verdict for the maple 10. I would say they will now focus on trying to proving the Quinn transactions were the same as the maple 10.