Quinn Insurance in Administration

[muppet]

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.

Brilliant!

Seanie Fitzpatrick gave even more employment and as for Bertie, sure was he the greatest employer of them all?

[muppet]

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

Even if this is proven it will not wipe out the debt which is what you are assuming.

[supersarsfields]

Well the Quinns have been advised otherwise so I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

[boojangles]

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.

Brilliant!

Seanie Fitzpatrick gave even more employment and as for Bertie, sure was he the greatest employer of them all?

Yawn. Give up Muppet.

[LeoMc]

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.

And the Krays were good to their mother.

[Rossfan]

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.

And the Krays were good to their mother.

[deiseach]

It is really the ultimate each-way bet for the Quinns. Win, they keep the lot. Lose, the system is bent and the pike is in the thatch.

[supersarsfields]

Sean Quinn lost a fortune of his own personal wealth on the CFDs. Hardly a no lose suitation.

[T Fearon]

Should this thread not be retitled "Quinn Maladministration in Insurance?"

[muppet]

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.

Brilliant!

Seanie Fitzpatrick gave even more employment and as for Bertie, sure was he the greatest employer of them all?

Yawn. Give up Muppet.

You should say that to the Quinns.

[supersarsfields]

Looks like the share support runs higher than just the Anglo management.

SOME members of the family of bankrupt businessman Sean Quinn may be called to give evidence for the prosecution in the criminal trials of former Anglo Irish Bank executives, the Commercial Court heard.

Former Anglo chairman Sean Fitzpatrick, former finance director Willie McAteer, and former managing director of the bank in Ireland Pat Whelan are awaiting trial in the Circuit Criminal Court on charges of providing unlawful financial assistance to 16 individuals in July 2008.


As it appears some of the Quinns "are in fact witnesses for the prosecution", they are unlikely to oppose an application by the DPP to defer their own action against the bank pending the outcome of those criminal proceedings, Martin Hayden SC, for the Quinns, told Mr Justice Peter Kelly.


It also emerged today about 250 hours of transcripts of phone conversations dating from 2007 between Anglo, the Department of Finance and the Central Bank (as regulator of Anglo) concerning matters arising from Sean Quinn's building up a stake in the bank to 29.4pc have been discovered by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (formerly Anglo) for the family's action.


Those transcripts and other documents were provided by IBRC to the Quinn's new lawyers in late November for the purposes of a possible application by the family to have the Central Bank and Department joined as co-defendants in their case.


Mr Hayden said it had only became obvious from the transcripts the "level of interaction" between the Department, Central Bank and Anglo.

His side was "firmly of the view" there were grounds for joining the Department and Central Bank but needed another four weeks to properly review the material.


In their action, the family contend they are not liable for loans of €2.34bn advanced to Quinn companies by Anglo on grounds those loans were unlawful.


Their case was provisionally fixed for hearing on April 9 but is now almost certain not to proceed then in light of the criminal proceedings and the possible application to join the Central Bank and Department.


When the case was mentioned, Mr Hayden sought four weeks to consider whether to join those parties.


Paul Gallagher SC, for IBRC, said the situation was "most unsatisfactory" as the case was in being since 2011 and the Quinns had clearly not yet decided whether to make the joinder application. Any adjournment should be less than four weeks, he said.


Mr Hayden said he was surprised by IBRC's attitude as IBRC had in December secured a month long adjournment of its cross-examination of some of his clients but, when his side wanted a month to examine material discovered in late November, it opposed that.


Mr Justice Kelly said he would grant the four weeks sought but there "must be certainty" about the joinder application when the matter returned to court on February 11th. Any such joinder would "change the whole landscape" and "recast" the family's case, he previously said.


The DPP's application to stay the family's action will come before the judge on January 29 and now appears likely to be unopposed. The DPP wrote to the bank last month saying she believed the family's action raised issues overlapping with issues in criminal proceedings (against Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr McAteer and Mr Whelan).


The overlapping issues relate to alleged breaches of Section 60 of the Companies Act prohibiting a company advancing financial assistance to buy its own shares, the court heard.

[muppet]

If Anglo staffers are found to have committed a crime I hope they all go to jail.

However the Quinns imho will still have to pay back all of the loans, illegal or not.

[supersarsfields]

Possibly Muppet I don't know enough to say for definite. But I know the Quinns have been advised that they are on a strong footing for getting them overturned. I'm guessing it's something to do with this from Section 60 of the Company's act.

14) Any transaction in breach of this section shall be voidable at the instance of the company against any person (whether a party to the transaction or not) who had notice of the facts which constitute such breach.

But I'm far from in the know with regards to the legal technicalities and even reading about Section 60 would have me confused. 

Out of interest, why are you so certain that if they prove the loans were illegal they will still be liable for them?

But anyway the above articule was more about whether the issue of the loan support ran higher than just the Anglo heirarchy? 

[muppet]

Possibly Muppet I don't know enough to say for definite. But I know the Quinns have been advised that they are on a strong footing for getting them overturned. I'm guessing it's something to do with this from Section 60 of the Company's act.

14) Any transaction in breach of this section shall be voidable at the instance of the company against any person (whether a party to the transaction or not) who had notice of the facts which constitute such breach.

But I'm far from in the know with regards to the legal technicalities and even reading about Section 60 would have me confused. 

Out of interest, why are you so certain that if they prove the loans were illegal they will still be liable for them?

But anyway the above articule was more about whether the issue of the loan support ran higher than just the Anglo heirarchy?

I'm not certain, it is just that the receipt of stolen (or illegal) goods never sits well in any court. It is hard to imagine the courts will say 'keep the €2bn ye mighty Quinns, shur the taxpayer can take it'.

There is also the risk of selecting a line from the act and forming an opinion on it. I have no idea how this might be interpreted for example: "(13) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prohibit—

(a) where the lending of money is part of the ordinary business of the company, the lending of money by the company in the ordinary course of its business;"

I believe there is a law (but I can't find it now) specifically relating to banks and prohibiting them lending to purchase their own shares but this is far more complex. The loans to the Maple 10 appear to be for the purpose of buying Quinn's shares. But what exactly were the loans to Quinn for? Does paying margin calls on a previous transaction constitute buying shares? I find the use of the words 'share support' interesting and can't seem to find them in the Companies Act.

On the 'who knew what?' element, there are those that believe that the info on the attempt to unwind some of Sean Quinn's holding went to the then Government.  Remember this story: http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0109/anglo.html. It should be noted that Mr. Cowen stated that Anglo was not discussed. Also remember this was only 2 months before the Bank Guarantee and only 4 months after the Bear Sterns debacle and the first wobble of Anglo's share price.

[armaghniac]

Surely declaring that a borrower does not have to repay a loan is prejudicial to the interest of depositors in the bank and so contrary to the public good. If the loan is illegal then those who authorised it may be prosecuted, the bank could be fined, but allowing the borrower trouser the loan does not seem good law.