Quinn Insurance in Administration

[seafoid]

Emm he was hardly stealing the money. He was giving a valid policy. And the policy still would have been covered after AdministratIon. Many people pay insurance upright.
To be honest that's kind of a non story.

sounds good though doesnt it? Desperate times calls for desperate mesuares and all that  total character assasination going on all around the place, now people even have stories coming from the "horses mouth" and it being millions!

I think we may see Mr Quinn appearing as the evil villian aiming to take over the world in the new Bond movie at this stage!

He didn't understand finance. And he got burnt. More of a tragic figure than anything else.

[muppet]

Personally I fail to see much difference between SQ and say a Bertie Ahern. Both were successful for a time and most people turned a blind eye to any weaknesses. The media loved them. However when they got it wrong lots of people suffered terribly. Both have made decisions that ultimately proved disastrous for their respective people.

[trileacman]

Lads,
It would be interesting to see how many millions the governements both sides of the border have paid him in grants down the years and here we (the tax payer) are again bailing him out, when other business people weren't preapred to do it when things started to go tits up.

Any evidence of these millions that he got hand over fist? Or are you just pulling accusations out of your ass. I wonder how it would stack up against the millions he and his employees gave in taxes to the government to piss away on Bertiebowl plans or e-voting machines? Sure never mind that craic, the only important thing is to partake in the boogieman guise being foisted upon Quinn's reputation.

[whiskeysteve]

I think that the Quinn family piling the rest of their cash into a field and burning it would be a better return for the taxpayer than shovelling it into Anglo. At least we would get the heat off of it, and more importantly it would be removed from contributing to prolonging the huge injustice of servicing the external losses of bondholders.

I have never heard such nonsense. You may or may not agree with the strategy of paying off bondholders, but it is something that should not be assessed only in itself but in the context in which it is taking place. But if Anglo does not recover its loans from those it lent money to, or as much as possible of these loans, then the taxpayer will have to put more capital in and that money will come from hospitals, schools and the like. This might be an injustice, Quinn paying back the money he borrowed to gamble on shares is not an injustice.

You are dead right that I may not agree about paying bondholders who should have taken losses.

Since we played ball with the troika has the budget deficit decreased? It has gone up! The longer we go along with the extortion the worse it will be. When the whole house of cards comes down in Europe we will be left with an even bigger adjustment in 1 year and a weaker economy to absorb the blow.

2 wrongs do not make a right - but to threaten our schools and hospitals unless the bondholders under the guarantee are paid by SQ, on the one hand, and then setting aside €700,000,000 that could have been used for this purpose to instead pay unsecured Anglo bondholders on the other... it really is farcical.

This is process that SQs money would help prolong and we would be thanked with a bigger disaster to clean up in the end.

[mylestheslasher]

I expect loneshark if your business was in bother you would still keep all your assets in your name, including the family home, just in case the banks needed to sell them to get back what you owed. I think you would be wise to stop calling Quinn a thief and looter too.

With all due respect, which is none whatsoever, f**k you. You don't know the first thing about me and if you did, you'd realise that I have paid my way on several occasions when I could have avoided it. I've lost bets for large sums, none of which were legally enforceable. I've paid up every one of them, including three grand to a company that didn't play fair with me and cancelled a bet I had with them when I caught them out. I still paid them when it was the other way around, because my name and my honour was at stake.

I've taken business ventures before, some of which have worked and some haven't. I've always only used money that I could afford to lose and I've always taken responsibility for my debts. I've acted conservatively when others would have gone further, but that's been my choice. I wouldn't risk assets I didn't want to lose like a family home - least of all on a bet. Which is exactly what happened here.

If you want to talk about me, feel free. Unlike a lot of people on this board, yourself included, my real life identity is well known and if Sean Quinn wants to come after me, he's welcome to do so. But don't make presumptions when you don't know the first thing about me.

Jaysus, you are a mighty man anyway. Paying debts when you don't even have to and even when you are in the right! Why the hell would Sean Quinn want to go after you???
You don't like me making presumptions about you but you have no problem presuming to know Sean Quinns motives and calling him a thief and a looter.

ps - I have no idea who you are nor do I care to be honest.

[Declan]

BUSINESSMAN Seán Quinn must repay €417m to the the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, formerly Anglo Irish Bank, the Commercial Court ordered today.

A summary judgment against Mr Quinn was granted to IBRC by Mr Justice Peter Kelly.

The bank's claim for a further €1.6bn has been adjourned until next Monday to give the official receiver in charge of Mr Quinn's bankruptcy in Northern Ireland a further chance to tell the court if he wants to challenge that claim.

The Judge granted the order for almost €417m as it relates to sums of money that Mr Quinn has admitted that he owes and are therefore undisputed.

[Denn Forever]

Don't know where to put this.  Here or What the F**k thread.

She is a director to some companies, the Secretary of others.

Seán Quinn's wife offers evidence 15 DEC 2011 17:39
The wife of businessman Seán Quinn has claimed she was under the undue influence of her husband when she signed documents for a loan of €3m from the former Anglo Irish Bank. 
-
The Irish Bank Resolution Corporation is seeking the repayment of the loan Patricia Quinn took out with her husband in 2006. 
-
She claims she has been a homemaker for 36 years. 
-
She said she did not know what she was signing and did not get the benefit of the money. 
-
IBRC has said Mrs Quinn's claims are not credible. They said she was a director of 63 Irish companies and was a company secretary of ten. 
-
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said Mrs Quinn's position was "startling" and "astonishing". 
-
She was saying she had no will of her own and was a "cat's paw" for her husband, signing every document he put in front of her without a clue what they were about. 
-
The judge will give his decision tomorrow morning

[Agent Orange]

The Irish Bank Resolution Corporation

Were they taking the piss when they came up with that name?

[Mayo4Sam]

The story with the wife and family is the one I have most issue with.
I think it's fairly obvious millions of euros have been moved to spouses and children by SQ ( and the likes of Seanie Fitz etc), this money should be reclaimed too, SQ can claim bankruptcy and still live like a millionaire, not my idea of bankruptcy. If the wife or kids can show they earned this money legitimately then fair enough but otherwise ........

[supersarsfields]

Everything was always in the kids names from 2002, the group, the insurance, the hotels etc. And there is alot more to this than simply a loan that is owed. I think it would be obvious enough to anyone now that the Quinns were loaned the money to prop up the share price in Anglo. Not to mention the fact investments were made in Anglo at a time when their books were being falsely represented.
They are fighting now to stop Anglo taking control of assests they don't believe they have a right to.

[muppet]

Everything was always in the kids names from 2002, the group, the insurance, the hotels etc. And there is alot more to this than simply a loan that is owed. I think it would be obvious enough to anyone now that the Quinns were loaned the money to prop up the share price in Anglo. Not to mention the fact investments were made in Anglo at a time when their books were being falsely represented.
They are fighting now to stop Anglo taking control of assests they don't believe they have a right to.

Was that not after he had built up a holding of 25% in Anglo using the leverage of a CFD?

[supersarsfields]

Yeah it was. But the money he had built up the stake with was mostly his own/ the groups. The majority of the loans that are now in dispute are regarding loans that Anglo forwarded to him to prevent him defaulting on the CFD's and then there being an influx of these to the market which would have resulted in the plummet of Anglo's share price.

Trust me there's a hell of a lot more to come out regarding this and most of what people are reading in the paper is the State/ Anglo side of things.

[muppet]

Yeah it was. But the money he had built up the stake with was mostly his own/ the groups. The majority of the loans that are now in dispute are regarding loans that Anglo forwarded to him to prevent him defaulting on the CFD's and then there being an influx of these to the market which would have resulted in the plummet of Anglo's share price.

Trust me there's a hell of a lot more to come out regarding this and most of what people are reading in the paper is the State/ Anglo side of things.

That may be true, but Anglo didn't force him to take a spread bet where he could lose €3bn. If Anglo didn't stupidly get involved he still would have lost the €3bn and probably quicker.

[supersarsfields]

He prob would have lost the £3billion, and he definitely shouldn't have invested more . But if he lost Three billion he would still be going. The figure he has lost now is closer to six all in. 
Anglo didn't force him to take the bet no. But it shouldn't have been a possibility. He shouldn't have been able to take the loans. And if he wasn't offered legal advise in doing so then the loans are illegal and he and the family can rightly contest them.

[Tubberman]

He prob would have lost the £3billion, and he definitely shouldn't have invested more . But if he lost Three billion he would still be going. The figure he has lost now is closer to six all in. 
Anglo didn't force him to take the bet no. But it shouldn't have been a possibility. He shouldn't have been able to take the loans. And if he wasn't offered legal advise in doing so then the loans are illegal and he and the family can rightly contest them.

That's a great defence alright. "Sure I didn't know what I was at".