Quinn Insurance in Administration

muppet · January 07, 2013, 09:23:16 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 07, 2013, 12:42:35 PM
I had always wondered if there was an option of taking private cases against Anglo for both their Fraudelent accounts and the share support. But again I would have thought if that was an option it would have been done by now.
I also see the Quinns are extending they're compensation claim to include the central bank and the Department of Finance.

For what?

'A bold boy made me lose those billions' isn't much of a defence.

supersarsfields · January 08, 2013, 07:21:27 AM

Err no. More to do with they're lack of regulation of Anglo.

muppet · January 08, 2013, 07:48:43 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 07:21:27 AM
Err no. More to do with they're lack of regulation of Anglo.

Seriously?

He had no problem with them when he bet his fortune on it, thinking the price would go up.

supersarsfields · January 08, 2013, 09:24:22 AM

That doesn't absolve the Central bank of liability. Nor does it prevent they're claim for compensation.

Rossfan · January 08, 2013, 11:11:51 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 09:24:22 AM
That doesn't absolve the Central bank of liability. Nor does it prevent they're claim for compensation.

At least 2 penalty points

Anyone can claim anything .... up to Courts to decide if they have a case ... but common sense would suggest there isn't one.

supersarsfields · January 08, 2013, 11:25:54 AM

Funny I'd take the opinion of solicitors over yours Ross. And considering there are numerous firms offering no win no fee to the Quinns I'd say they'd feel that the Quinns have a fair chance.

heganboy · January 08, 2013, 11:50:36 AM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 11:25:54 AM
Funny I'd take the opinion of solicitors

<pontificating>
It is funny that you would take the opinion of solicitors. Gather facts, or in there absence do the best you can, and then make up your own mind. The conflicting "evidence" in this case being presented as fact to the media is the result of the worst case of CYA and court of public opinion.
Oh, and don't trust lawyers unless they are family. Commercial solicitors are in business to make money, not to provide justice.
</pontificating>

supersarsfields · January 08, 2013, 11:58:35 AM

When I lack the professional knowledge about something, I'll usually take the advise of informed professionals as a pretty sound grounding. You're right, Commercial solicitors are out to make money. Therefore when they are prepared to offer no win no fee on such large cases (multi-million) then they obviously believe the Quinns have a strong case.

Rossfan · January 08, 2013, 03:18:32 PM

Solicitors/Barristers lose cases in Courts every day.
Presumably they had advised their clients that they had winnable cases .

Most of the Developers/chancers/cowboys from the Celtic tiger Bubble Madness years got short enough shrift from the Courts here.

muppet · January 08, 2013, 03:26:47 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 09:24:22 AM
That doesn't absolve the Central bank of liability. Nor does it prevent they're claim for compensation.

Do I have this latest throw of the Quinn dice correct?

He is suing the Central Bank and the Dept of Finance for allowing Anglo to lend him money to pay off losses he already had incurred, made independently by himself? And he is looking for compensation??

Anglo's behaviour looks nailed on illegal to me, but Quinn's money was already lost so I see no grounds for compensation there. If anything, in addition to his current predicaments, as an experienced company director he should face a judge for his part in the alleged market manipulation scam.

BTW can you point me to these no win no fee people? I want to have some fun.

Anyone want to join me: The Man who sued God

supersarsfields · January 08, 2013, 04:20:31 PM

Muppet, it isn't Sean Quinn who's taking the case against anglo. It's the Quinn children. They're claiming that anglo had no authority to take over the group on the basic that the loans used to do so were illegal ( and I would say this is nailed on!!). Therefore they are claiming for compensation for losses encurred due to that take over. It was the Dept of Finance who authorised the take over through Anglo, and the Quinns are saying that the dept of Finance knew about the loans previous to doing this.
The compensation claim if successful will be huge.

Rossfan · January 08, 2013, 05:20:35 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
The compensation claim if successful will be huge.

I suppose all ye bucks up North will be happy to see the plain people/taxpayers of the 26 Cos shelling out more money to Celtic Tiger/Bubble cowboys in that case.

muppet · January 08, 2013, 08:10:42 PM

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
Muppet, it isn't Sean Quinn who's taking the case against anglo. It's the Quinn children. They're claiming that anglo had no authority to take over the group on the basic that the loans used to do so were illegal ( and I would say this is nailed on!!). Therefore they are claiming for compensation for losses encurred due to that take over. It was the Dept of Finance who authorised the take over through Anglo, and the Quinns are saying that the dept of Finance knew about the loans previous to doing this.
The compensation claim if successful will be huge.

Imagine I bought a house using a mortgage from Switzerland. Imagine this mortgage triggered 'margin call' payments every time the property market fell 10%. Imagine that a reckless Irish bank needed to avoid my forced selling of the house due to the margin calls, and lent me the money to pay off my debts to the Swiss bank.

Now because I can't pay back the Irish bank, I plan to go to court to sue them to PAY ME the money that I LOST to the Swiss, because of an illegality concerning the lending by the Irish Bank. In this way I will end up having my house and all my debts written off on a technicality.

Or in others words I will have my cake and eat it.

Every debtor (including mortgage holders) in the country will be checking every document, letter by letter, to have their debts voided if that happens. Which of course it won't.

supersarsfields · January 08, 2013, 10:51:52 PM

Again your starting from the view that its Sean making the claim. Its not. The Quinn family just need to be able to show that the loans were illegal (Can't see this being much of a problem). If they can show this then they can claim the bank acted unlawfully enforcing these claims. And the share support is only one aspect of why the loans were illegal. Their claim is based on more than that.
But we don't need to theory what will happen. The case is due to start in April so we'll find out soon enough how strong it is.w

EC Unique · January 08, 2013, 10:59:37 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2013, 05:20:35 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on January 08, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
The compensation claim if successful will be huge.
I suppose all ye bucks up North will be happy to see the plain people/taxpayers of the 26 Cos shelling out more money to Celtic Tiger/Bubble cowboys in that case.

Yep. Because the Quinns will use the money to rebuild their business and create loads of employment. In the long run it will be better for the 26 as well as it will help straighten out a corrupt system.