Quinn Insurance in Administration

[muppet]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

[oisinog]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

That appears to be the case Muppet SQ had a personal Guarantee on the funds but didn't have the collateral to cover this.

[muppet]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

That appears to be the case Muppet SQ had a personal Guarantee on the funds but didn't have the collateral to cover this.

Can anyone explain to me why he isn't being done for fraud then?

[Mayo4Sam]

Surely a personal guarantee would see him lose the house and farm?

[oisinog]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

That appears to be the case Muppet SQ had a personal Guarantee on the funds but didn't have the collateral to cover this.

Can anyone explain to me why he isn't being done for fraud then?

There is nothing Illegal about it. AIB sanctioned the loan on his word they should have been looking into it in relation to his assets

[oisinog]

Surely a personal guarantee would see him lose the house and farm?

Not if its in his childrens name

[Rois]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

Quinn may have entered into a loan agreement on basis of personal guarantee based on a certain net worth, possibly at a time when he owned the assets.  It is technically the fault of the bank not to have secured the lending on any particular asset or insisting that he did not dispose of any assets if this is the case.  I saw this often when I did loan valuation work for NAMA.  And that wasn't on Anglo loans, so you can imagine it's widespread.  NAMA legally can't go after a principal private residence - possibly the same in this instance, not sure. 

I'm certainly no fan of the decisions that Sean Quinn made and continues to make, but there is a definite scape goat feel to Anglos' actions. 

[muppet]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

Quinn may have entered into a loan agreement on basis of personal guarantee based on a certain net worth, possibly at a time when he owned the assets.  It is technically the fault of the bank not to have secured the lending on any particular asset or insisting that he did not dispose of any assets if this is the case.  I saw this often when I did loan valuation work for NAMA.  And that wasn't on Anglo loans, so you can imagine it's widespread.  NAMA legally can't go after a principal private residence - possibly the same in this instance, not sure. 

I'm certainly no fan of the decisions that Sean Quinn made and continues to make, but there is a definite scape goat feel to Anglos' actions.

Can you flesh this out for me Rois?

I get a loan based on a personal guarantee. What exactly have I signed for in that scenario? If it turns out I guaranteed assets or funds I didn't have, why should the bank leave it at that? Is it another problem with our law, i.e. you can only get done for fraud, which is very difficult to prove and there are no lesser charges which apply, for example, in the States?

[oisinog]

There is indeed Mayo. And I accept that I post pro Quinn sentiments and I have my reasons for that. But then there are others here that will believe every little thing that is put out by the state/ Anglo without question. Even when logic would tell you otherwise because it's easier to ignore it and Anglo/ the state have went to town on identifying SQ as the figurehead of the downfall of the Irish economy.

Unfortunately SQ doesn't have the ability to cover his depts. He never had any assets to cover them. The assets are in the children's names and have been for years. He should never have been loaned 2.8 billion and he should never have asked or taken the loan on.  But this was the move that destroyed everything he worked for and turned the people of Ireland against him. For some it's negated everything he did before, which is fair enough, for others it hasn't.

The asset moving at the minute is protecting the kids assets which they are contesting Anglo's right to.

Are you saying Quinn entered into a loan agreement on the basis of collateral that he didn't own?

Quinn may have entered into a loan agreement on basis of personal guarantee based on a certain net worth, possibly at a time when he owned the assets.  It is technically the fault of the bank not to have secured the lending on any particular asset or insisting that he did not dispose of any assets if this is the case.  I saw this often when I did loan valuation work for NAMA.  And that wasn't on Anglo loans, so you can imagine it's widespread.  NAMA legally can't go after a principal private residence - possibly the same in this instance, not sure. 

I'm certainly no fan of the decisions that Sean Quinn made and continues to make, but there is a definite scape goat feel to Anglos' actions.

Can you flesh this out for me Rois?

I get a loan based on a personal guarantee. What exactly have I signed for in that scenario? If it turns out I guaranteed assets or funds I didn't have, why should the bank leave it at that? Is it another problem with our law, i.e. you can only get done for fraud, which is very difficult to prove and there are no lesser charges which apply, for example, in the States?

Muppet a personal guarantee can range quite a lot. You could do a personal guarantee on a loan for one of your friends. If they dont pay it you have to. Some banks dont require you meet with them for this you can get a solicitor to witness this.

As the loan is not secured against an asset such as a mortgage is. The bank can not then reprocess an asset under your name as they have no rights to chase it.

AIB should have secured this against his companies that way they would have the right to sell them and get their money back

[Rois]

Can't give you a legal answer here, but loans were secured on personal guarantees, the value of which is determined by the cash you have, the assets you own etc but not legally secured on the assets.  A prudent bank would have revalued the value of the personal guarantee on a regular basis and sought additional security when this value reduced, as very often the loans were out of term and terms could have been varied, but through my experience of the good times in the banks, this was RARELY done, and I imagine even less so by Anglo.  There may indeed be clauses in the loan agreements (which I never saw) regarding clawback when PGs are worth less than their initial value, so perhaps the banks can go after them.  In valuing loans they were generally given a value of zero.  Not sure if that's an indication of how easily it was believed they could be pursued for value - I'm speculating here.

Realistically, loans were lent on PGs to people who had other borrowings with secured properties.  Sean Quinn was not the only one who has an outstanding PG as security for a loan, but he's the only one we hear about. 

[muppet]

Can't give you a legal answer here, but loans were secured on personal guarantees, the value of which is determined by the cash you have, the assets you own etc but not legally secured on the assets.  A prudent bank would have revalued the value of the personal guarantee on a regular basis and sought additional security when this value reduced, as very often the loans were out of term and terms could have been varied, but through my experience of the good times in the banks, this was RARELY done, and I imagine even less so by Anglo.  There may indeed be clauses in the loan agreements (which I never saw) regarding clawback when PGs are worth less than their initial value, so perhaps the banks can go after them.  In valuing loans they were generally given a value of zero.  Not sure if that's an indication of how easily it was believed they could be pursued for value - I'm speculating here.

Realistically, loans were lent on PGs to people who had other borrowings with secured properties.  Sean Quinn was not the only one who has an outstanding PG as security for a loan, but he's the only one we hear about.

Thanks for that.

As for the bit in bold, is that because the others are all tied up in NAMA?

[oisinog]

Can't give you a legal answer here, but loans were secured on personal guarantees, the value of which is determined by the cash you have, the assets you own etc but not legally secured on the assets.  A prudent bank would have revalued the value of the personal guarantee on a regular basis and sought additional security when this value reduced, as very often the loans were out of term and terms could have been varied, but through my experience of the good times in the banks, this was RARELY done, and I imagine even less so by Anglo.  There may indeed be clauses in the loan agreements (which I never saw) regarding clawback when PGs are worth less than their initial value, so perhaps the banks can go after them.  In valuing loans they were generally given a value of zero.  Not sure if that's an indication of how easily it was believed they could be pursued for value - I'm speculating here.

Realistically, loans were lent on PGs to people who had other borrowings with secured properties.  Sean Quinn was not the only one who has an outstanding PG as security for a loan, but he's the only one we hear about.

Thanks for that.

As for the bit in bold, is that because the others are all tied up in NAMA?

My understanding of NAMA (please correct me if I am wrong Rois) is the the loans held in NAMA are against property. Nama is trying to regain some of the money against bad loans by selling of the land or assets. You have to remember there are also loans in Nama that are performing well and the payments are being met.

[Lone Shark]

Start by asking yourself why when Concerned Irish businesses raised a document outlining why no such levy was required and how it was a stealth tax on the irish people and when this was brought to court the Judge ruled that it would not allow it to be recieved as it may "disrupt the sale" of QIL. Considering the document was regarding why the sale should not have been made under the terms they were (Nothing about returning it to SQ by the way) it's kind of a strange decision.

I find your glib accusation that any of the anti-Quinn posters are just swallowing things without thinking a little insulting, but I'll give you a chance to prove your case. Post up links to this document, plus anything else you have that paints Seán Quinn's actions in a different light to how they are currently portrayed, and I would be very happy to read that material and see whether it sounds more plausible.

[Rois]

Can't give you a legal answer here, but loans were secured on personal guarantees, the value of which is determined by the cash you have, the assets you own etc but not legally secured on the assets.  A prudent bank would have revalued the value of the personal guarantee on a regular basis and sought additional security when this value reduced, as very often the loans were out of term and terms could have been varied, but through my experience of the good times in the banks, this was RARELY done, and I imagine even less so by Anglo.  There may indeed be clauses in the loan agreements (which I never saw) regarding clawback when PGs are worth less than their initial value, so perhaps the banks can go after them.  In valuing loans they were generally given a value of zero.  Not sure if that's an indication of how easily it was believed they could be pursued for value - I'm speculating here.

Realistically, loans were lent on PGs to people who had other borrowings with secured properties.  Sean Quinn was not the only one who has an outstanding PG as security for a loan, but he's the only one we hear about.

Thanks for that.

As for the bit in bold, is that because the others are all tied up in NAMA?

My understanding of NAMA (please correct me if I am wrong Rois) is the the loans held in NAMA are against property. Nama is trying to regain some of the money against bad loans by selling of the land or assets. You have to remember there are also loans in Nama that are performing well and the payments are being met.

Not all the loans are individually against property.  All loans related to a person are grouped in a "connection" and may or may not have specific properties against them but some were only based on PGs.  The "connection" was valued in its entirety. 

There are certainly performing loans but the LTVs are now way above what they would have been when made.  This will be a problem when renewing facilities.  NAMA will then hold all the power. 

Muppet I do believe that Sean Quinn is being singled out because of the processes that are not driven by NAMA and I'm not aware of NAMA's strategy in pursuing their borrowers through the courts. 

[oisinog]

Can't give you a legal answer here, but loans were secured on personal guarantees, the value of which is determined by the cash you have, the assets you own etc but not legally secured on the assets.  A prudent bank would have revalued the value of the personal guarantee on a regular basis and sought additional security when this value reduced, as very often the loans were out of term and terms could have been varied, but through my experience of the good times in the banks, this was RARELY done, and I imagine even less so by Anglo.  There may indeed be clauses in the loan agreements (which I never saw) regarding clawback when PGs are worth less than their initial value, so perhaps the banks can go after them.  In valuing loans they were generally given a value of zero.  Not sure if that's an indication of how easily it was believed they could be pursued for value - I'm speculating here.

Realistically, loans were lent on PGs to people who had other borrowings with secured properties.  Sean Quinn was not the only one who has an outstanding PG as security for a loan, but he's the only one we hear about.

Thanks for that.

As for the bit in bold, is that because the others are all tied up in NAMA?

My understanding of NAMA (please correct me if I am wrong Rois) is the the loans held in NAMA are against property. Nama is trying to regain some of the money against bad loans by selling of the land or assets. You have to remember there are also loans in Nama that are performing well and the payments are being met.

Not all the loans are individually against property.  All loans related to a person are grouped in a "connection" and may or may not have specific properties against them but some were only based on PGs.  The "connection" was valued in its entirety. 

There are certainly performing loans but the LTVs are now way above what they would have been when made.  This will be a problem when renewing facilities.  NAMA will then hold all the power. 

Muppet I do believe that Sean Quinn is being singled out because of the processes that are not driven by NAMA and I'm not aware of NAMA's strategy in pursuing their borrowers through the courts.

Thank you Rois working in banking up in the north I have no dealings with Nama that why i was not fully sure about them.