Quinn Insurance in Administration

[deiseach]

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?

It'd be best for all concerned if we let it lie. I'm going to do that now

[Lone Shark]

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.

How does that follow? The loans may have been for an illegal purpose, but first of all SQ would have to admit to knowingly being part of that illegal process, which he hasn't done. After all, if he took the loans out in good faith to make a legitimate investment, then he should be paying them back. Secondly I'm unaware of any legally savvy person who has written anything saying that this should void the loans, even if it were the case? Thirdly, Surely if the loans should be voided, then SQ should be providing a clear paper trail of where the money has gone, and substantiating that the full funds went into share support, and fourthly, I don't feel any sympathy for him because on an actuarial basis, Quinn Insurance was being run as a great big ponzi scheme and now we all have to pay the price for that. Even if SQ was relieved of the responsibility for paying back the Anglo share loan, he should be forced to make good the hole in the QI accounts, and not by "trading out if it" as he himself suggests. So asset retrieval to fill that gap is justified.

I'll accept that the fourth point is more based on natural justice than any acute point of law, but if a man gets away with one thing on a subtle point of law, I'll struggle to feel sympathetic to him if he gets snookered by a different one.

I sympathise with you and everyone who has lost their jobs in that area - it's a pain I felt a few years ago and I'm still struggling to get back to an even keel - but that's not a case for letting one large extended family live the high life, while everybody out there with a health insurance policy, car insurance policy or home policy subsidises them.

[orangeman]

If and when Anglo or whatever it is called now do manage to get control of the property all over the world, where does the money go to and will the tax payer be much better off as a consequence after the lawyers are finished with it and will the taxpatyer get much or any relief from the austerity they currently face ?


Look at the reports from today's hearing - 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.


Still no word of the Quinn case v Anglo being heard anytime soon ?.

[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.

How does that follow? The loans may have been for an illegal purpose, but first of all SQ would have to admit to knowingly being part of that illegal process, which he hasn't done. After all, if he took the loans out in good faith to make a legitimate investment, then he should be paying them back. Secondly I'm unaware of any legally savvy person who has written anything saying that this should void the loans, even if it were the case? Thirdly, Surely if the loans should be voided, then SQ should be providing a clear paper trail of where the money has gone, and substantiating that the full funds went into share support, and fourthly, I don't feel any sympathy for him because on an actuarial basis, Quinn Insurance was being run as a great big ponzi scheme and now we all have to pay the price for that. Even if SQ was relieved of the responsibility for paying back the Anglo share loan, he should be forced to make good the hole in the QI accounts, and not by "trading out if it" as he himself suggests. So asset retrieval to fill that gap is justified.

I'll accept that the fourth point is more based on natural justice than any acute point of law, but if a man gets away with one thing on a subtle point of law, I'll struggle to feel sympathetic to him if he gets snookered by a different one.

I sympathise with you and everyone who has lost their jobs in that area - it's a pain I felt a few years ago and I'm still struggling to get back to an even keel - but that's not a case for letting one large extended family live the high life, while everybody out there with a health insurance policy, car insurance policy or home policy subsidises them.

Well The Quinns solicitors that are running the case for the quinns have claimed that. Also Justice Kelly agreed when he gave the Quinns the full legal standing to run the cases against Anglo. So I would count both those legal savvy.
SQ might indeed get into crap over the share support. I don't believe anything other than that. But at least the full picture will have been looked at. And if it's deemed that the loans are unenforcable then the assets and the group would be returned to the Quinn children and they can try are rectify the complete mess that Anglo and Paul O brien are making of the company at the minute. If they lose the cases then so be it. Course I would rather the cases were run in a European court than a Irish one.

[cicfada]

one law for the rich and one for the poor!  How the heck  do other people feel now that they were jailed and Sean Quinn gets away with it!!  Of course you'll get the defenders out in force......."he has done wonders for Cavan/Fermanagh". Same way as people in Wexford would defend Mick Wallace,  people in Tipp defend Lowry, etc etc! God this country really stinks sometimes!!

[supersarsfields]

So what did SQ get away with that others were jailed for?

[orangeman]

We could draw up a list of those who blatantly and flagrantly were corrupt and committed acts of fraud but who will never have to face up to their actions in any court.


But we'd best not do that ( unless we want banned ).

[orangeman]

Quinn's counsel today advised the court that his clients would have difficulties unwinding certain transactions as other companies and individuals outside this jurisdiction were involved.


I think we all know where this is going.

[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

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?

You'd swear you were the only person ever to get laid off, it's happened to lots on here, including myself. You above all others should be annoyed at SQ, he gambled his business with Anglo and lost, thats why your out of a job, not because of Anglo or the government, nobody put a gun to his head.

[orangeman]

3 weeks to sort things out or else. I read that the punishment for contempt is a month inside. Not too bad considering the high stakes.

The bankrupt former billionaire, Sean Quinn, has been given three weeks to co-operate with the state-owned bank that is seeking control of his assets.

Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne has made a number of orders aimed at forcing Sean Quinn, his son Sean and nephew Peter Darragh Quinn to reverse the movement of assets out of the reach of the bank.

The High Court in Dublin will reassess the Quinns' level of co-operation with the former Anglo-Irish bank, now the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) on 20 July.
The three men were found guilty on Tuesday of contempt of court for putting assets beyond IBRC's reach, an offence for which they could potentially face jail.

The judge said on Friday she would only consider punitive measures after seeing the extent of the co-operation from the Quinns in relation to the orders.

[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.

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?

You'd swear you were the only person ever to get laid off, it's happened to lots on here, including myself. You above all others should be annoyed at SQ, he gambled his business with Anglo and lost, thats why your out of a job, not because of Anglo or the government, nobody put a gun to his head.

Can you even claim to have been laid off if you were self employed.

[haranguerer]

You above all others should be annoyed at SQ,

Thats his point you clown

[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?

You'd swear you were the only person ever to get laid off, it's happened to lots on here, including myself. You above all others should be annoyed at SQ, he gambled his business with Anglo and lost, thats why your out of a job, not because of Anglo or the government, nobody put a gun to his head.

Yeah I was making out I was the only person ever to be laid of!!  I was lucky enough to get another job quick enough so I was hardly looking pity.
He took a gamble with Anglo and lost alright (I'm not even going to bother going into the falsified accounts by Anglo by some 7 Billion making them look a better investment than they were). But he would have been fit to walk away from it with the Group still intact. But then the loans come into play. Whether it was Quinn going to Anglo or Anglo putting pressure on Quinns is being debated, but either way they shouldn't have been santioned.
But instead of looking at that whole process the state is happy to progress with the bits that suit them.
So am I annoyed at SQ. Yes, but I temper that with the fact that without SQ I would never have had that opportunity and nor would many others who gained employment with him. You can dismiss that if you like but that's my opinion.  Anglo on the other hand doesn't have any redeeming features. And yet the state are reluctant to investigate they're involvment in the whole process.

[Lone Shark]

With all due respect, Anglo employed people too - so if SQ deserves credit for employing people, so do they, it's not fair just to say they've "no redeeming features". That said, I think that whole side of it is a red herring to be honest.

[supersarsfields]

You're entitled to that opinion loan shark. I obviously disagree and I can't see either of us moving on those opinions so we'd be as well to leave it at that. Plus Tyrone's playing and I've a wedding today so I'll be on the run all day. We can take it up again on Monday!!