Quinn Insurance in Administration

[sammymaguire]

Quinn must have been fed some serious shite to pump that kind of money into Anglo.

The farmer's son was sucked in and blew out by the big city boys.

[thebigfella]

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. What if wrongs were committed and ignored by the powers that be. How long do you continue down that path before you realise there's no interest in correcting the wrongs committed against you. How long would you continue to do nothing? Or would you take action. I know which I would do.

SQ may perceive that wrongs were done against him, but that's why we have laws and courts. It's up to him to prove that he was wronged, in a court of the land. He may feel that the system may have failed him, and I'm guessing you agree, but we can't have a system whereby people act according to their own sense of right and wrong, ignoring the law. You're essentially proposing anarchy. The correct remedy for SQ is to act within the law, not to break the law in retaliation.

What next - a man burgles my house, and I know who it is, but for one reason or another, he does not get convicted - so I enforce my own brand of vigilante justice, chopping off his arms so he can't do it again?

Loan shark, you have to be either blind or dumb to believe that Anglo weren't supporting their own share price. I mean look at it logically. They lent a man with no assets 2.8 billion. They were able to come up with a payment of 100's of millions at a day's notice ( on a day the bank was closed) to give to the group to enhance it's group's finances, while not attached to any asset in particular, at a time when funnily enough their share price was dropping. Their top dogs at the time are saying what was going on, and in fact are saying that the state had a hand in it. Pair all that with the maple ten and you really do need to be struggling with sanity if you don't believe the loans were to support the shares.
And the fact that any case against Anglo is now a case against the state. Do you want to offer reasons as to why they are ploughing on with certain cases while ignoring others? The state have no interest in trying to find out if the loans were for share support because it costs them. As I said earlier why would you be worried about the rights of the state when the state obviously have no interest in protecting your rights.

Anarchy, perhaps but sometimes in a corrupt state with corrupt government it takes drastic measures to start the ball rolling. And before anyone is wondering I have no doubt that SQ is up to it in to his eye balls as well and if the cases for share support came up he would be as guilty as anyone in the bank and the state that were involved. But the fact that they are cherry picking which cases to run to me is unacceptable and as mentioned I support any action the Quinns took to take assets of Anglo.

Deiseach I don't believe SQ is doing anything for anyone but himself and his family. But then again I don't believe he ever proclaimed he was.

I've no doubt if SQ dropped the Kacks in front of you, you would suck he knob of him.

[supersarsfields]

You love your one line 'witty' remarks don't ya!! You're just a bundle of craic alright. 

[Lone Shark]

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. What if wrongs were committed and ignored by the powers that be. How long do you continue down that path before you realise there's no interest in correcting the wrongs committed against you. How long would you continue to do nothing? Or would you take action. I know which I would do.

SQ may perceive that wrongs were done against him, but that's why we have laws and courts. It's up to him to prove that he was wronged, in a court of the land. He may feel that the system may have failed him, and I'm guessing you agree, but we can't have a system whereby people act according to their own sense of right and wrong, ignoring the law. You're essentially proposing anarchy. The correct remedy for SQ is to act within the law, not to break the law in retaliation.

What next - a man burgles my house, and I know who it is, but for one reason or another, he does not get convicted - so I enforce my own brand of vigilante justice, chopping off his arms so he can't do it again?

Loan shark, you have to be either blind or dumb to believe that Anglo weren't supporting their own share price. I mean look at it logically. They lent a man with no assets 2.8 billion. They were able to come up with a payment of 100's of millions at a day's notice ( on a day the bank was closed) to give to the group to enhance it's group's finances, while not attached to any asset in particular, at a time when funnily enough their share price was dropping. Their top dogs at the time are saying what was going on, and in fact are saying that the state had a hand in it. Pair all that with the maple ten and you really do need to be struggling with sanity if you don't believe the loans were to support the shares.
And the fact that any case against Anglo is now a case against the state. Do you want to offer reasons as to why they are ploughing on with certain cases while ignoring others? The state have no interest in trying to find out if the loans were for share support because it costs them. As I said earlier why would you be worried about the rights of the state when the state obviously have no interest in protecting your rights.

Anarchy, perhaps but sometimes in a corrupt state with corrupt government it takes drastic measures to start the ball rolling. And before anyone is wondering I have no doubt that SQ is up to it in to his eye balls as well and if the cases for share support came up he would be as guilty as anyone in the bank and the state that were involved. But the fact that they are cherry picking which cases to run to me is unacceptable and as mentioned I support any action the Quinns took to take assets of Anglo.

Deiseach I don't believe SQ is doing anything for anyone but himself and his family. But then again I don't believe he ever proclaimed he was.

Of course the loans were to support the shares. I've no problem with agreeing to that, nor do I have any problem agreeing with you that the state is cherry-picking which cases to pursue, while others are being left fallow for no obvious reason.

However SQ took these loans, and according to Justice Dunne, he then hid assets and showed contempt for the Irish courts in his testimony. He should be stripped bare, including all assets that he passed on.

That the Anglo boys are getting away with it is the scandal - that SQ is being brought to justice is the one good news story here.

[Mayo4Sam]

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. What if wrongs were committed and ignored by the powers that be. How long do you continue down that path before you realise there's no interest in correcting the wrongs committed against you. How long would you continue to do nothing? Or would you take action. I know which I would do.

SQ may perceive that wrongs were done against him, but that's why we have laws and courts. It's up to him to prove that he was wronged, in a court of the land. He may feel that the system may have failed him, and I'm guessing you agree, but we can't have a system whereby people act according to their own sense of right and wrong, ignoring the law. You're essentially proposing anarchy. The correct remedy for SQ is to act within the law, not to break the law in retaliation.

What next - a man burgles my house, and I know who it is, but for one reason or another, he does not get convicted - so I enforce my own brand of vigilante justice, chopping off his arms so he can't do it again?

Loan shark, you have to be either blind or dumb to believe that Anglo weren't supporting their own share price. I mean look at it logically. They lent a man with no assets 2.8 billion. They were able to come up with a payment of 100's of millions at a day's notice ( on a day the bank was closed) to give to the group to enhance it's group's finances, while not attached to any asset in particular, at a time when funnily enough their share price was dropping. Their top dogs at the time are saying what was going on, and in fact are saying that the state had a hand in it. Pair all that with the maple ten and you really do need to be struggling with sanity if you don't believe the loans were to support the shares.
And the fact that any case against Anglo is now a case against the state. Do you want to offer reasons as to why they are ploughing on with certain cases while ignoring others? The state have no interest in trying to find out if the loans were for share support because it costs them. As I said earlier why would you be worried about the rights of the state when the state obviously have no interest in protecting your rights.

Anarchy, perhaps but sometimes in a corrupt state with corrupt government it takes drastic measures to start the ball rolling. And before anyone is wondering I have no doubt that SQ is up to it in to his eye balls as well and if the cases for share support came up he would be as guilty as anyone in the bank and the state that were involved. But the fact that they are cherry picking which cases to run to me is unacceptable and as mentioned I support any action the Quinns took to take assets of Anglo.

Deiseach I don't believe SQ is doing anything for anyone but himself and his family. But then again I don't believe he ever proclaimed he was.

Of course you do it's not you who'll have to pay these billions back. You're making SQ out to be some sort of shining light when in actual fact he gambled his empire and now is unwilling to pay up his debts, which means that while his kids and grand kids live it up ordinary people will have to pay for his debts, which makes him a thief, he is quiet literally stealing my money by moving theses assets out of the reach of Anglo.

Is there any of that you would disagree with?

[orangeman]

Lawyers for IBRC have asked the High Court to impose a raft of coercive orders against Sean Quinn to rectify his "blatant" contempt of court.

The bank's legal team has not expressly asked for the bankrupt businessman to be jailed, but has suggested the court may consider a punitive element to protect the administration of justice.

IBRC senior counsel Paul Gallagher has described the contempt as a "deliberate and blatant plan to subvert a court order".

The order in question was imposed last summer to restrain the Quinns from moving international property assets beyond the reach of the former Anglo Irish Bank.

Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne has found it was breached by Sean Quinn, his son Sean and nephew Peter Quinn.

Mr Gallagher for IBRC is now seeking a raft of orders to remedy the situation and has expressed fresh concern about share dealings and rental income from the Quinn's IPG assets, including the Kutuzoff tower in Russia.

Far-reaching disclosure orders are being requested and he has told the court it has the power to make additional policing orders.

Senior Counsel Bill Shipsey for the Quinns is arguing against the reliefs and has called them "most extraordinary and draconian".

[supersarsfields]

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. What if wrongs were committed and ignored by the powers that be. How long do you continue down that path before you realise there's no interest in correcting the wrongs committed against you. How long would you continue to do nothing? Or would you take action. I know which I would do.

SQ may perceive that wrongs were done against him, but that's why we have laws and courts. It's up to him to prove that he was wronged, in a court of the land. He may feel that the system may have failed him, and I'm guessing you agree, but we can't have a system whereby people act according to their own sense of right and wrong, ignoring the law. You're essentially proposing anarchy. The correct remedy for SQ is to act within the law, not to break the law in retaliation.

What next - a man burgles my house, and I know who it is, but for one reason or another, he does not get convicted - so I enforce my own brand of vigilante justice, chopping off his arms so he can't do it again?

Loan shark, you have to be either blind or dumb to believe that Anglo weren't supporting their own share price. I mean look at it logically. They lent a man with no assets 2.8 billion. They were able to come up with a payment of 100's of millions at a day's notice ( on a day the bank was closed) to give to the group to enhance it's group's finances, while not attached to any asset in particular, at a time when funnily enough their share price was dropping. Their top dogs at the time are saying what was going on, and in fact are saying that the state had a hand in it. Pair all that with the maple ten and you really do need to be struggling with sanity if you don't believe the loans were to support the shares.
And the fact that any case against Anglo is now a case against the state. Do you want to offer reasons as to why they are ploughing on with certain cases while ignoring others? The state have no interest in trying to find out if the loans were for share support because it costs them. As I said earlier why would you be worried about the rights of the state when the state obviously have no interest in protecting your rights.

Anarchy, perhaps but sometimes in a corrupt state with corrupt government it takes drastic measures to start the ball rolling. And before anyone is wondering I have no doubt that SQ is up to it in to his eye balls as well and if the cases for share support came up he would be as guilty as anyone in the bank and the state that were involved. But the fact that they are cherry picking which cases to run to me is unacceptable and as mentioned I support any action the Quinns took to take assets of Anglo.

Deiseach I don't believe SQ is doing anything for anyone but himself and his family. But then again I don't believe he ever proclaimed he was.

Of course you do it's not you who'll have to pay these billions back. You're making SQ out to be some sort of shining light when in actual fact he gambled his empire and now is unwilling to pay up his debts, which means that while his kids and grand kids live it up ordinary people will have to pay for his debts, which makes him a thief, he is quiet literally stealing my money by moving theses assets out of the reach of Anglo.

Is there any of that you would disagree with?

I can guarantee you the whole Quinn debacle has costed me a hell of a lot more that any one of you's so that argument doesn't wash. You are only looking at one side of the story. You're crying for justice so that it doesn't cost you anything. But I don't hear you protesting for justice for the Quinns for any wrongs done to them. As I said earlier you reckon justice at all costs, unless it costs you directly. Then justice doesn't seem so important. And considering the state seem to hold the same opinion as you, I don't blame them for taking any action they took when they are getting no justice for themselves.

And it would be hard to listen to anything on rights and wrongs from someone who believes that any sort of financial crime is worse that rape.

[Lone Shark]

I can guarantee you the whole Quinn debacle has costed me a hell of a lot more that any one of you's so that argument doesn't wash. You are only looking at one side of the story. You're crying for justice so that it doesn't cost you anything. But I don't hear you protesting for justice for the Quinns for any wrongs done to them. As I said earlier you reckon justice at all costs, unless it costs you directly. Then justice doesn't seem so important. And considering the state seem to hold the same opinion as you, I don't blame them for taking any action they took when they are getting no justice for themselves.

And it would be hard to listen to anything on rights and wrongs from someone who believes that any sort of financial crime is worse that rape.

But I've yet to hear any evidence of such wrongdoings? All I've heard is talk of how Anglo were doing this to illegally support their own share price. That's as maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that SQ was doing it so he could make money, not for any greater good.

Was SQ in over his head? Maybe. It seems that way. But he still signed the contract, and any time I sign a contract, I'm doing so fully aware that the counterparty is doing it for a reason too. You can be damn sure that if I didn't know what their reason was, I wouldn't be signing it.

[supersarsfields]

Loan shark you say you are under no illusion that there was share support. I've quoted examples of why that is so above. So I think we are in agreement that this happened. Therefore any loans used for the used of share support are illegal and unenforceable. However these loans are being enforced because the state are not looking at the evidence in front of them that there was share support by one of the largest financial institutions in Ireland. And that there may even be a case that it went farther up the food chain than just the bank.
Sean Quinn will be involved in this as well and no doubt be up to his eyes in it. But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the evidence in front of you just because Anglo has been institutionalised and it might cost the tax payer. 

[AQMP]

supersarsfields, as a resident of Co Fermanagh I'm aware of the positive impact SQ has had on the wider area.  But I don't you get to ths position he was in by being an out and out altruist.  SQ created jobs for people so that they could make money for him, no criticism, that's the way capitlaism works and I'm OK with that.

However on the particular issue of the contempt of court proceedings I cannot see any defence for the Quinn family.  They are, to use the vernacular, "bang to rights" on this charge and will have to take their punishment.  Also they admit to owing IRBC €445mill (or thereabouts), which they are not in a position to repay, and the assets that were moved out of reach are reckoned to be worth €500mill...which they were going to use to repay the €445mill??...

[AQMP]

Looks like they've been given a chance to avoid a spell in clink:

Irish Times

Bankrupt businessman Sean Quinn, his son Sean and nephew Peter Darragh Quinn have been ordered to take specified steps aimed at unwinding measures taken to put multi-million euro assets in the Quinn international property group beyond the reach of the former Anglo Irish Bank.

Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne also today made clear to the three they could face punitive sanctions if they do not obey the orders, which include orders requiring them to disclose all their assets.

The three were involved in a conspiracy or plan to put assets beyond the bank's reach and that was impermissible, she said.

She would "not sit idly by and allow that take place and allow court orders be breached".

The judge said she would not disagree with a description of the contempt of court orders in this case as "flagrant" and she was disappointed there was no acknowledgement by the three, even at this stage, of the "great wrongdoing" involved.

Earlier, lawyers for the bank had said that while it was primarily seeking a large number of coercive orders against the three aimed at unwinding asset stripping measures, the court should also consider punitive orders given the "flagrant" contempt and the response of the three to the court's finding.

Paul Gallagher SC, for the bank, said the three had offered no apology to the court, were not offering to resign from companies and were offering no clear proposals to reverse asset-stripping measures.

There had been a "gross affront" to the court established in evidence but the three were effectively asking the court to ignore that, he said.

The bank had still no information about what was happening to some $35 million rental income from properties in the IPG, he added.

Bill Shipsey SC, for the three men, said the orders being sought by the bank were draconian and extraordinary, well beyond the court's findings of contempt and it had no jurisdiction to make them. He said committal to prison was a last resort and the only orders made should be ones that have the three an opportunity to purge their contempt in relation to the specific findings against them.

His clients would have difficulties unwinding certain transactions as other companies and individuals outside this jurisdiction were involved.

He said his clients accepted appropriate coercive orders could be made to reverse the transactions involved in the contempt findings but the nature of those orders was for the court to decide. The bank was not entitled to the wide ranging orders sought, he said.

Counsel also indicated the Quinns were considering an appeal against the contempt findings.

The judge made orders directing the three to disclose all their assets in Ireland and worldwide, whether held directly or indirectly. They must also disclose the work done by lawyers and any other agents of theirs in relation to the worldwide assets.

The judge also granted the bank's application to appoint a receiver over assets of the three and a range of orders to assist the bank in identifying, protecting and controlling the IPG assets and ensuring the bank secures the rental and any other income from them.

All three men sat impassively in the packed courtroom as the judge gave her ruling. Supporters of the Quinns and some of their relatives were also in court

The judge made the rulings following her findings earlier this week the three engaged in a "complex, complicated and no doubt costly" series of steps designed to put assets beyond the reach of the bank in "a blatant, dishonest and deceitful manner".

All three told untruths to the court and their behaviour was "as far removed from the concept of honour and respectability as it is possible to be", she said.

The issue of what penalty to impose was adjourned to allow the sides consider her ruling and make submissions.

[Mayo4Sam]

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. What if wrongs were committed and ignored by the powers that be. How long do you continue down that path before you realise there's no interest in correcting the wrongs committed against you. How long would you continue to do nothing? Or would you take action. I know which I would do.

SQ may perceive that wrongs were done against him, but that's why we have laws and courts. It's up to him to prove that he was wronged, in a court of the land. He may feel that the system may have failed him, and I'm guessing you agree, but we can't have a system whereby people act according to their own sense of right and wrong, ignoring the law. You're essentially proposing anarchy. The correct remedy for SQ is to act within the law, not to break the law in retaliation.

What next - a man burgles my house, and I know who it is, but for one reason or another, he does not get convicted - so I enforce my own brand of vigilante justice, chopping off his arms so he can't do it again?

Loan shark, you have to be either blind or dumb to believe that Anglo weren't supporting their own share price. I mean look at it logically. They lent a man with no assets 2.8 billion. They were able to come up with a payment of 100's of millions at a day's notice ( on a day the bank was closed) to give to the group to enhance it's group's finances, while not attached to any asset in particular, at a time when funnily enough their share price was dropping. Their top dogs at the time are saying what was going on, and in fact are saying that the state had a hand in it. Pair all that with the maple ten and you really do need to be struggling with sanity if you don't believe the loans were to support the shares.
And the fact that any case against Anglo is now a case against the state. Do you want to offer reasons as to why they are ploughing on with certain cases while ignoring others? The state have no interest in trying to find out if the loans were for share support because it costs them. As I said earlier why would you be worried about the rights of the state when the state obviously have no interest in protecting your rights.

Anarchy, perhaps but sometimes in a corrupt state with corrupt government it takes drastic measures to start the ball rolling. And before anyone is wondering I have no doubt that SQ is up to it in to his eye balls as well and if the cases for share support came up he would be as guilty as anyone in the bank and the state that were involved. But the fact that they are cherry picking which cases to run to me is unacceptable and as mentioned I support any action the Quinns took to take assets of Anglo.

Deiseach I don't believe SQ is doing anything for anyone but himself and his family. But then again I don't believe he ever proclaimed he was.

Of course you do it's not you who'll have to pay these billions back. You're making SQ out to be some sort of shining light when in actual fact he gambled his empire and now is unwilling to pay up his debts, which means that while his kids and grand kids live it up ordinary people will have to pay for his debts, which makes him a thief, he is quiet literally stealing my money by moving theses assets out of the reach of Anglo.

Is there any of that you would disagree with?

I can guarantee you the whole Quinn debacle has costed me a hell of a lot more that any one of you's so that argument doesn't wash. You are only looking at one side of the story. You're crying for justice so that it doesn't cost you anything. But I don't hear you protesting for justice for the Quinns for any wrongs done to them. As I said earlier you reckon justice at all costs, unless it costs you directly. Then justice doesn't seem so important. And considering the state seem to hold the same opinion as you, I don't blame them for taking any action they took when they are getting no justice for themselves.

And it would be hard to listen to anything on rights and wrongs from someone who believes that any sort of financial crime is worse that rape.

Who said I believe a financial crime is worse than rape? Certainly not me, I made a blatantly tongue in cheek remark about SQ having no honour, so you can untwist your knickers on that one.

Your claim that this has cost you more than any of us is just soft chat, what has it cost you? It's quiet clearly in the public domain what it's costing me as a tax payer in the Republic.
I'm angry that a man who has the means to pay back some of his huge debts is instead putting them out of reach of those he owes it to.
Do I think those in anglo responsible for this should Be brought to justice? Absolutely but that shouldn't affect the rights or wrongs of SQs case

[supersarsfields]

supersarsfields, as a resident of Co Fermanagh I'm aware of the positive impact SQ has had on the wider area.  But I don't you get to ths position he was in by being an out and out altruist.  SQ created jobs for people so that they could make money for him, no criticism, that's the way capitlaism works and I'm OK with that.

However on the particular issue of the contempt of court proceedings I cannot see any defence for the Quinn family.  They are, to use the vernacular, "bang to rights" on this charge and will have to take their punishment.  Also they admit to owing IRBC €445mill (or thereabouts), which they are not in a position to repay, and the assets that were moved out of reach are reckoned to be worth €500mill...which they were going to use to repay the €445mill??...

AQMP this is typical of some of the stuff you see in the paper when some journalists are twisting things to their slant. Yes there are 445 Million Euro legal loans. But you seem to forget that they have also taken over the whole Quinn group. The glass factories alone are worth more than 445 Million. And that's before you take into account the other factories. So the foreign properties aren't needed to cover these loans.

[supersarsfields]

That's a simplistic way of looking at things. What if wrongs were committed and ignored by the powers that be. How long do you continue down that path before you realise there's no interest in correcting the wrongs committed against you. How long would you continue to do nothing? Or would you take action. I know which I would do.

SQ may perceive that wrongs were done against him, but that's why we have laws and courts. It's up to him to prove that he was wronged, in a court of the land. He may feel that the system may have failed him, and I'm guessing you agree, but we can't have a system whereby people act according to their own sense of right and wrong, ignoring the law. You're essentially proposing anarchy. The correct remedy for SQ is to act within the law, not to break the law in retaliation.

What next - a man burgles my house, and I know who it is, but for one reason or another, he does not get convicted - so I enforce my own brand of vigilante justice, chopping off his arms so he can't do it again?

Loan shark, you have to be either blind or dumb to believe that Anglo weren't supporting their own share price. I mean look at it logically. They lent a man with no assets 2.8 billion. They were able to come up with a payment of 100's of millions at a day's notice ( on a day the bank was closed) to give to the group to enhance it's group's finances, while not attached to any asset in particular, at a time when funnily enough their share price was dropping. Their top dogs at the time are saying what was going on, and in fact are saying that the state had a hand in it. Pair all that with the maple ten and you really do need to be struggling with sanity if you don't believe the loans were to support the shares.
And the fact that any case against Anglo is now a case against the state. Do you want to offer reasons as to why they are ploughing on with certain cases while ignoring others? The state have no interest in trying to find out if the loans were for share support because it costs them. As I said earlier why would you be worried about the rights of the state when the state obviously have no interest in protecting your rights.

Anarchy, perhaps but sometimes in a corrupt state with corrupt government it takes drastic measures to start the ball rolling. And before anyone is wondering I have no doubt that SQ is up to it in to his eye balls as well and if the cases for share support came up he would be as guilty as anyone in the bank and the state that were involved. But the fact that they are cherry picking which cases to run to me is unacceptable and as mentioned I support any action the Quinns took to take assets of Anglo.

Deiseach I don't believe SQ is doing anything for anyone but himself and his family. But then again I don't believe he ever proclaimed he was.

Of course you do it's not you who'll have to pay these billions back. You're making SQ out to be some sort of shining light when in actual fact he gambled his empire and now is unwilling to pay up his debts, which means that while his kids and grand kids live it up ordinary people will have to pay for his debts, which makes him a thief, he is quiet literally stealing my money by moving theses assets out of the reach of Anglo.

Is there any of that you would disagree with?

I can guarantee you the whole Quinn debacle has costed me a hell of a lot more that any one of you's so that argument doesn't wash. You are only looking at one side of the story. You're crying for justice so that it doesn't cost you anything. But I don't hear you protesting for justice for the Quinns for any wrongs done to them. As I said earlier you reckon justice at all costs, unless it costs you directly. Then justice doesn't seem so important. And considering the state seem to hold the same opinion as you, I don't blame them for taking any action they took when they are getting no justice for themselves.

And it would be hard to listen to anything on rights and wrongs from someone who believes that any sort of financial crime is worse that rape.

Who said I believe a financial crime is worse than rape? Certainly not me, I made a blatantly tongue in cheek remark about SQ having no honour, so you can untwist your knickers on that one.

Your claim that this has cost you more than any of us is just soft chat, what has it cost you? It's quiet clearly in the public domain what it's costing me as a tax payer in the Republic.
I'm angry that a man who has the means to pay back some of his huge debts is instead putting them out of reach of those he owes it to.
Do I think those in anglo responsible for this should Be brought to justice? Absolutely but that shouldn't affect the rights or wrongs of SQs case

Soft Chat? I'm made no secret of the fact that I worked for the Quinn Group but have since lost my job since Anglo have come in making a pig's ear of verything. So I'd hazard a guess that I'm affected more than anyone else on here in that regard.
Your angry that SQ won't pay his depts. Grand. I'm angry that Anglo were using illegal loans to take assets that I believe  they have no right to. I'm also angry that the government have no interest in finding out what Anglo got up to because they know it could cost them 2.8 Billion. Better just to let that one lie eh?

[orangeman]

In a packed Court 16 of the Four Courts in Dublin, the Quinns sat among rows of lawyers as the IBRC sought more than 30 orders against them following the contempt ruling.

Only five were upheld by the judge but she then warned she would not "sit idly by" if assets were stripped a second time.

The Quinns were told to disclose, by affidavit, all assets worldwide in which the three hold an interest either jointly or solely.

The court ordered that a receiver be appointed over all assets worldwide, pending a full trial, and that the three men must resign from the board of or any managerial role in any company or body within the Quinns' International Property Group.

Also, they were told to take all necessary steps to restore the shareholdings of several companies, including Finansstroy, Red Sector and Logistica, which were linked to the asset stripping.

Finally, the Quinns were ordered to instruct any person acting on their direction or behalf to take steps to stop attempts in the Russian Federation to have the valuable Finansstroy company made bankrupt.