Quinn Insurance in Administration

[supersarsfields]

I would imagine Armaghniac it is to stop the loaner (Anglo) from profiting from loans that were illegal, which would be fair enough in most cases as it would act as a strong deterrent to banks/ finance companies from entering into such transactions.  But I suppose it doesn't take into account the fact that this bank has been privatised. A breach of laws by a financial organisation would be treated more severe than a breach by an individual.

Muppet, I agree there's a lot in this and I don't believe that it'll be a straight forward case. I only pulled that reference out of the company's act to show that's it's not going to be a dry cut case. TBH I don't even know if that's what the Quinns are basing their case on. There's obviously much more than that to come out. There's issues over when the bank sought the personal guarantees, claims that they tried to get retrospective documents signed months and years later, when it looked like the Loans could not be repaid etc. So there'll be a lot to run in it as well and I'd imagine there's be a lot of dirty laundry on show from both sides.

[armaghniac]

I would imagine Armaghniac it is to stop the loaner (Anglo) from profiting from loans that were illegal,

I know feck all about law, but I imagine that a bank would not be able to charge interest on a dodgy loan, that is their "profit". But the borrower would not be able to keep the principal.

[supersarsfields]

The Quinns (The Children and Patricia) argument is that they didn't profit from the loans as they received no money or assets from the loans. The loans were used to meet margin calls by SQ and were for the benefit of the bank (To stop the shares pouring onto the market) and not for them.  They claim the loans were then retrospectively attached to assets the children owned outright.
So it's far from straight forward on who will take the hit on the loans.

[muppet]

The Quinns (The Children and Patricia) argument is that they didn't profit from the loans as they received no money or assets from the loans. The loans were used to meet margin calls by SQ and were for the benefit of the bank (To stop the shares pouring onto the market) and not for them.  They claim the loans were then retrospectively attached to assets the children owned outright.
So it's far from straight forward on who will take the hit on the loans.

That is a remarkable explanation.

Did Sean Quinn or the Quinn group benefit in any way by these loans covering his margin calls? Who gave personal guarantees covering these loans?

The idiotic thing about this whole thing is that, in my honest opinion, if the Quinn children's argument is what they say it is, then they should be suing their father. That is just my opinion which is not a qualified one.

[AQMP]

The Quinns (The Children and Patricia) argument is that they didn't profit from the loans as they received no money or assets from the loans. The loans were used to meet margin calls by SQ and were for the benefit of the bank (To stop the shares pouring onto the market) and not for them.  They claim the loans were then retrospectively attached to assets the children owned outright.
So it's far from straight forward on who will take the hit on the loans.

Surely the benefit that the Quinns received from the loans is that they didn't have to meet the margin call from other sources or their own resources??  I know these CFDs can be complex but if I am liable to pay €1mill to settle a CFD but the shares are only worth €800k then I'm bucked for €200k which I have to pay.  I can pay from my own resources if I have a spare €200k resting in my account or, as looks to have happened in this case, I can borrow €200k to meet the shortfall.  I'm still €200k down but the margin call has been settled and therefore in a sense I have "profited"??

[supersarsfields]

Neither the Group or the Quinn children benefitted at all from the covering of the marginal calls. It just levered more debt against the company. Sean Quinn benefitted in that he wasn't made bankrupt over the marginal calls (But was subsequently made bankrupt anyway) and had hoped he would trade out of it.

The personal guarantees are another area of debate. The Quinn Children claim they signed documents long after the loans had been agreed and forwarded. There's also debate over what exactly was signed and whether Anglo have all the proper loan documentation signed, whether they bank provided the proper legal advise etc 

The idiotic thing about this whole thing is that, in my honest opinion, if the Quinn children's argument is what they say it is, then they should be suing their father. That is just my opinion which is not a qualified one

I think you are right, and they may have to do that. But that won't absolve Anglo. They will be suing Anglo as well.

[muppet]

Neither the Group or the Quinn children benefitted at all from the covering of the marginal calls. It just levered more debt against the company. Sean Quinn benefitted in that he wasn't made bankrupt over the marginal calls (But was subsequently made bankrupt anyway) and had hoped he would trade out of it.

The personal guarantees are another area of debate. The Quinn Children claim they signed documents long after the loans had been agreed and forwarded. There's also debate over what exactly was signed and whether Anglo have all the proper loan documentation signed, whether they bank provided the proper legal advise etc 

The idiotic thing about this whole thing is that, in my honest opinion, if the Quinn children's argument is what they say it is, then they should be suing their father. That is just my opinion which is not a qualified one

I think you are right, and they may have to do that. But that won't absolve Anglo. They will be suing Anglo as well.

If, and I emphasise the word if, SQ had put up any part(s) of the Group as collateral against the original CFDs, then the Group would have benefitted from the loans covering the margin calls.

[seafoid]

Is Quinn Insurance still in administration?

[supersarsfields]

The Quinns (The Children and Patricia) argument is that they didn't profit from the loans as they received no money or assets from the loans. The loans were used to meet margin calls by SQ and were for the benefit of the bank (To stop the shares pouring onto the market) and not for them.  They claim the loans were then retrospectively attached to assets the children owned outright.
So it's far from straight forward on who will take the hit on the loans.

Surely the benefit that the Quinns received from the loans is that they didn't have to meet the margin call from other sources or their own resources??  I know these CFDs can be complex but if I am liable to pay €1mill to settle a CFD but the shares are only worth €800k then I'm bucked for €200k which I have to pay.  I can pay from my own resources if I have a spare €200k resting in my account or, as looks to have happened in this case, I can borrow €200k to meet the shortfall.  I'm still €200k down but the margin call has been settled and therefore in a sense I have "profited"??

Sorry AQMP, I was replying to Muppet. But it kind of answers your question too. The Quinn chuildren recieved no benefit because the call on the CFD's wasn't to them or to the group. It was to SQ directly. So while the CFD house could go after SQ for everything he had based on the marginal calls, they wouldn't have been able to touch the assets of the childrens. and that included the group and the overseas property that are now in dispute.

[supersarsfields]

Neither the Group or the Quinn children benefitted at all from the covering of the marginal calls. It just levered more debt against the company. Sean Quinn benefitted in that he wasn't made bankrupt over the marginal calls (But was subsequently made bankrupt anyway) and had hoped he would trade out of it.

The personal guarantees are another area of debate. The Quinn Children claim they signed documents long after the loans had been agreed and forwarded. There's also debate over what exactly was signed and whether Anglo have all the proper loan documentation signed, whether they bank provided the proper legal advise etc 

The idiotic thing about this whole thing is that, in my honest opinion, if the Quinn children's argument is what they say it is, then they should be suing their father. That is just my opinion which is not a qualified one

I think you are right, and they may have to do that. But that won't absolve Anglo. They will be suing Anglo as well.

If, and I emphasise the word if, SQ had put up any part(s) of the Group as collateral against the original CFDs, then the Group would have benefitted from the loans covering the margin calls.

Yeah I agree. But remember the group wasn't SQ's asset to put up. It's ownership was split between the children so would have to have been done through them. And I know they claim to have had no involvement in the CFD's but whether that's true or not now I don't know.

[supersarsfields]

Is Quinn Insurance still in administration?

Quinn Insurance is still in administration. But it's only to deal with the open and historic claims that Liberty didn't take on. They don't write any new policies. And any renewals are transfered to Liberty Insurance

[Declan]

Quinn Insurance is still in administration. But it's only to deal with the open and historic claims that Liberty didn't take on.

I see the new COO has plenty of experience in working in busted insurance companies. Ex PMPA

[Declan]

The trial of three former senior Anglo Irish Bank Executives in connection with alleged financial irregularities at the Bank is due to take place next year.
The former chairman and chief executive Sean FitzPatrick, the former finance director Willie McAteer and the former managing director in Ireland Patrick Whelan are all charged with 16 offences under the Companies Act.
The Circuit Criminal Court was told today that 24 million documents may have to be considered before the trial can begin.
They are accused of permitting Anglo Irish Bank to give financial assistance to Patricia Quinn, her five children and ten senior clients of the bank, who became known as the 'Maple Ten', to enable them to buy shares in the bank
The Circuit Criminal Court was told today that 24 million documents may have to be considered before the trial can begin.
Prosecuting counsel Una Ni Raifteraigh said disclosure in the case was complex and that it was not simply about supplying the material to the defence, it was also a matter of culling and organising it.
She also said the defence needed to be given an adequate opportunity to absorb the material.
Judge Ellen Ring set a trial date of January 13th next year and said if it cannot be done by then it says something about the system.
The judge was also told the trial is expected to last at least three months.
The three were remanded on continuing bail to appear again on 6th March.

[Hound]

Possibly Muppet I don't know enough to say for definite. But I know the Quinns have been advised that they are on a strong footing for getting them overturned. I'm guessing it's something to do with this from Section 60 of the Company's act.

14) Any transaction in breach of this section shall be voidable at the instance of the company against any person (whether a party to the transaction or not) who had notice of the facts which constitute such breach.

But I'm far from in the know with regards to the legal technicalities and even reading about Section 60 would have me confused. 

Out of interest, why are you so certain that if they prove the loans were illegal they will still be liable for them?

But anyway the above articule was more about whether the issue of the loan support ran higher than just the Anglo heirarchy?

Surely declaring that a borrower does not have to repay a loan is prejudicial to the interest of depositors in the bank and so contrary to the public good. If the loan is illegal then those who authorised it may be prosecuted, the bank could be fined, but allowing the borrower trouser the loan does not seem good law.

Not sure if there have been any more developments on this particular issue over the last couple of weeks, so this might be moot, while I'm not a lawyer, I have come across Section 60 issues.

A loan being void doesn't mean it disappears. The money is still owed. You're supposed to pay back a void loan immediately (so it'd be as if it never happened). If the borrower does not pay it back, the lender still has the right to sue for it.

However, if the borrower was unaware there was a Section 60 issue, while he still owes the money, there would be a serious questionmark around whether any security or other guarantees given by the borrower would still be valid (from my experience I'd say the security is almost certainly not valid and any personal guarantees would be unlikely to be valid).

[muppet]

Possibly Muppet I don't know enough to say for definite. But I know the Quinns have been advised that they are on a strong footing for getting them overturned. I'm guessing it's something to do with this from Section 60 of the Company's act.

14) Any transaction in breach of this section shall be voidable at the instance of the company against any person (whether a party to the transaction or not) who had notice of the facts which constitute such breach.

But I'm far from in the know with regards to the legal technicalities and even reading about Section 60 would have me confused. 

Out of interest, why are you so certain that if they prove the loans were illegal they will still be liable for them?

But anyway the above articule was more about whether the issue of the loan support ran higher than just the Anglo heirarchy?

Surely declaring that a borrower does not have to repay a loan is prejudicial to the interest of depositors in the bank and so contrary to the public good. If the loan is illegal then those who authorised it may be prosecuted, the bank could be fined, but allowing the borrower trouser the loan does not seem good law.

Not sure if there have been any more developments on this particular issue over the last couple of weeks, so this might be moot, while I'm not a lawyer, I have come across Section 60 issues.

A loan being void doesn't mean it disappears. The money is still owed. You're supposed to pay back a void loan immediately (so it'd be as if it never happened). If the borrower does not pay it back, the lender still has the right to sue for it.

However, if the borrower was unaware there was a Section 60 issue, while he still owes the money, there would be a serious questionmark around whether any security or other guarantees given by the borrower would still be valid (from my experience I'd say the security is almost certainly not valid and any personal guarantees would be unlikely to be valid).

Would this argument require people who were company directors to claim they were unaware of the Companies Act?