Quinn Insurance in Administration

Started by An Gaeilgoir, March 30, 2010, 12:15:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

deiseach

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 12, 2012, 04:05:18 PM
That wantn't his decision and yet it's what it always falls back to. The fact you are out a few pound in your back pocket is more important than whether or not SQ has a case. Which is what I've been saying for a while now.

If it were "a few pound", I'd probably let it slide. But it isn't "a few pound". As I said earlier, this is a man who doesn't feel obliged to pay back a £3 million loan he took out to refurbish his house. All the protestations of what an honest man he is founder on that simple example

Lone Shark

I hate this thing of how you have to be either "for us or against us".

The directors of Anglo Irish bank were stinking, rotten greedy traitors who pulled all sorts of trickery to cook the books, and undoubtedly are continuing to do so.

The government acted with either spectacular idiocy or else with treasonous intent in putting in place the universal blanket bank guarantee.

Irish developers hiding assets in the names of the relatives and spouses should have any assets purchased with borrowed money  seized, no matter who owns them now. The new purchaser of the asset could be compensated to the tune of whatever consideration they paid for it. In most cases that's little or nothing. I've a second hand lap top here, I'll happily donate that to the state if we'll get back the company that was traded for a laptop belonging to Sean Quinn.

Above all, the regulator was asleep at the wheel and thus was either the most grossly incompetent or else utterly corrupt individual ever to hold such a high office in the history of the state.


HOWEVER

It is possible to hold all these views and still think that Seán Quinn is a selfish, stroke pulling cheat who as was pointed out above, is full of solutions that involve him and his family continuing to live with assets and an income stream the likes of which normal Irish people can never imagine possessing.



If the courts of this land declare that Seán Quinn should be allowed to keep any of his assets, then I'll have no qualm or quibble with that decision, and certainly I'd like to see these things ruled on, rather than decided in the court of public opinion. However I despise this idea that SQ should be given a free pass to feather the nests of his family as a safety net in case he doesn't get the decision from the court that he thinks he should.

As for the argument that one poster made about the North being his genuine centre of interest, I think this says all that needs to be said about that. Or maybe the Irish government has influence in her majesty's courtroom as well?

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/sean-quinn-northern-ireland-bankruptcy-order-annulled-by-belfast-judge/


supersarsfields

It's a few pound out of your pocket, collectively it's obviously more.

The £3million loan is no different than the loans that were meant to be for "Foreign properties" They weren't for that purpose. The loan wasn't used to refurbish SQ's house as was shown in court. It was for the same as the rest of the loans to prop up share prices.

supersarsfields

Quote from: Lone Shark on January 12, 2012, 04:18:54 PM
I hate this thing of how you have to be either "for us or against us".

The directors of Anglo Irish bank were stinking, rotten greedy traitors who pulled all sorts of trickery to cook the books, and undoubtedly are continuing to do so.

The government acted with either spectacular idiocy or else with treasonous intent in putting in place the universal blanket bank guarantee.

Irish developers hiding assets in the names of the relatives and spouses should have any assets purchased with borrowed money  seized, no matter who owns them now. The new purchaser of the asset could be compensated to the tune of whatever consideration they paid for it. In most cases that's little or nothing. I've a second hand lap top here, I'll happily donate that to the state if we'll get back the company that was traded for a laptop belonging to Sean Quinn.

Above all, the regulator was asleep at the wheel and thus was either the most grossly incompetent or else utterly corrupt individual ever to hold such a high office in the history of the state.


HOWEVER

It is possible to hold all these views and still think that Seán Quinn is a selfish, stroke pulling cheat who as was pointed out above, is full of solutions that involve him and his family continuing to live with assets and an income stream the likes of which normal Irish people can never imagine possessing.



If the courts of this land declare that Seán Quinn should be allowed to keep any of his assets, then I'll have no qualm or quibble with that decision, and certainly I'd like to see these things ruled on, rather than decided in the court of public opinion. However I despise this idea that SQ should be given a free pass to feather the nests of his family as a safety net in case he doesn't get the decision from the court that he thinks he should.

As for the argument that one poster made about the North being his genuine centre of interest, I think this says all that needs to be said about that. Or maybe the Irish government has influence in her majesty's courtroom as well?

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/sean-quinn-northern-ireland-bankruptcy-order-annulled-by-belfast-judge/


What exactly is it in that article that I'm meant to be looking at that would conflict with the North being SQ's centre of main interests for 38 years?

deiseach

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 12, 2012, 04:20:34 PM
It's a few pound out of your pocket, collectively it's obviously more.

Define 'few'

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 12, 2012, 04:20:34 PM
The £3million loan is no different than the loans that were meant to be for "Foreign properties" They weren't for that purpose. The loan wasn't used to refurbish SQ's house as was shown in court. It was for the same as the rest of the loans to prop up share prices.

If that were the case, then Seán Quinn was a party to the criminality.

supersarsfields

Can't remember but I think someone worked it out back a few pages on this thread.

If that were the case, then Seán Quinn was a party to the criminality.

That seems to be the case alright.

deiseach


Lone Shark

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 12, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
What exactly is it in that article that I'm meant to be looking at that would conflict with the North being SQ's centre of main interests for 38 years?

- Sean didn't disclose in his bankruptcy application that he had an Irish passport and didn't have a UK passport, didn't disclose that he is registered to vote in the Republic

- Judge says Sean was hesitant in disclosing details of new business ventures after Quinn group receivership and concludes "on balance of probabilities" lease document on office in Derrylin, Fermanagh was prepared after date claimed by Sean Quinn and was designed to bolster Sean's present arguments about his centre of main interest being in Northern Ireland

Are those the actions of a man looking to paint an accurate picture of his situation?

supersarsfields

No. And I'm sure that he'll receive punishment with regards that when the time comes (Court cases)

But it still leaves the loans illegitimate. Did you never ask why Anglo lent a man who had no assets in his name £2.8 Billion?

deiseach

Quote from: Lone Shark on January 12, 2012, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on January 12, 2012, 04:24:10 PM
What exactly is it in that article that I'm meant to be looking at that would conflict with the North being SQ's centre of main interests for 38 years?

- Sean didn't disclose in his bankruptcy application that he had an Irish passport and didn't have a UK passport, didn't disclose that he is registered to vote in the Republic

- Judge says Sean was hesitant in disclosing details of new business ventures after Quinn group receivership and concludes "on balance of probabilities" lease document on office in Derrylin, Fermanagh was prepared after date claimed by Sean Quinn and was designed to bolster Sean's present arguments about his centre of main interest being in Northern Ireland

Are those the actions of a man looking to paint an accurate picture of his situation?

I think the judge was being very, um, judicious.

sammymaguire

He who has not sinned can cast the first stone.

The good he did to the area MASSIVELY outweighs the misdemeanors he may have committed. I have yet to meet a Saint in Irish business. Leave it at that lads.
DRIVE THAT BALL ON!!

deiseach

Quote from: supersarsfields on January 12, 2012, 04:43:53 PM
No. And I'm sure that he'll receive punishment with regards that when the time comes (Court cases)

But it still leaves the loans illegitimate. Did you never ask why Anglo lent a man who had no assets in his name £2.8 Billion?

I think we can all agree that what went on in Anglo was bent. But where we differ is in thinking that some of the perpetrators of this bentness should be given licence to go out and be bent again. That's what letting Seán Quinn off the hook for his actions would be. Moral hazard has to come into play here

Puckoon

Quote from: sammymaguire on January 12, 2012, 04:47:35 PM
He who has not sinned can cast the first stone.

The good he did to the area MASSIVELY outweighs the misdemeanors he may have committed. I have yet to meet a Saint in Irish business. Leave it at that lads.

Just a hunch, but I imagine a resounding "NO", to that request.

deiseach

Quote from: sammymaguire on January 12, 2012, 04:47:35 PM
He who has not sinned can cast the first stone.

The good he did to the area MASSIVELY outweighs the misdemeanors he may have committed. I have yet to meet a Saint in Irish business. Leave it at that lads.

::)

muppet

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0112/1224310141422.html

Slight tangent here but there was a case in the papers yesterday involving a family of Lynches who thought a €26m AIB loan was non-recourse but found out later it wasn't.

He [the judge] found the family genuinely but mistakenly believed the AIB loan was non-recourse, meaning the bank's recourse was confined to the lands, but rejected their [Lynches] claims that AIB negligently misrepresented that the loan was non-recourse.

He also found that while a solicitor with LK Shields had wrongly advised the Lynchs that the final loan facility letter was non-recourse, the scope of the firm's duty of care to them did not extend to making it liable for the loan.


Even though the judge accepted that they family were not only unaware of the recourse aspect of the loan, but he agreed that a solicitor in LK Sheilds had wrongly advised them of that. Despite all that they were still on the hook for the loan.
MWWSI 2017