Quinn Insurance in Administration

[Franko]

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?

Yes. Does that seem odd to you?.  I would guarantee that most of the company directors in the country do not know the intricacies of the Companies Act.  That's why company directors employ Solicitors and Accountants.

[muppet]

Yes. Does that seem odd to you?.  I would guarantee that most of the company directors in the country do not know the intricacies of the Companies Act.  That's why company directors employ Solicitors and Accountants.

'Unaware' is not the same as 'do not know the intricacies of'.

[gerrykeegan]

Yes. Does that seem odd to you?.  I would guarantee that most of the company directors in the country do not know the intricacies of the Companies Act.  That's why company directors employ Solicitors and Accountants.

'Unaware' is not the same as 'do not know the intricacies of'.

Company law is company law. If you are a director you are bound by the law. You can't say, Jesus I didn't know that. Its a bit like someone saying to a guard "oh I didn't know you can't use a mobile phone when driving, when did they change that law"

I also can't see how Quinn could say he was unaware of  Section 60. He was borrowing money to meet the margin calls. How could you argue, Jesus I didn't think that might be against company law. Not when you have surrounded yourself with a team of lawyers.

[Franko]

If that's the case then the answer to your original question is no.

[Rois]

Ah jeez, the first thing you're taught in law is that ignorance of the is no defence!

Counter-sue the lawyers for losses suffered as a result of their advice but the opening liability still remains with the person whose actions are subject to the law (i.e. directors).       

[supersarsfields]

Yes. Does that seem odd to you?.  I would guarantee that most of the company directors in the country do not know the intricacies of the Companies Act.  That's why company directors employ Solicitors and Accountants.

'Unaware' is not the same as 'do not know the intricacies of'.

Company law is company law. If you are a director you are bound by the law. You can't say, Jesus I didn't know that. Its a bit like someone saying to a guard "oh I didn't know you can't use a mobile phone when driving, when did they change that law"

I also can't see how Quinn could say he was unaware of  Section 60. He was borrowing money to meet the margin calls. How could you argue, Jesus I didn't think that might be against company law. Not when you have surrounded yourself with a team of lawyers.

I think people are getting a bit confused here. The breaking of section 60 has been aimed at Anglo Employees (Fitz Dunne etc) not the Quinns. The talk in this thread previously about breach of the companies act is by Anglo not the Quinns, ie the company doing the lending. The Quinns may have broken other laws (I couldn't tell you as I don't have the legal knowledge) with regards taking out the loans. But this Section 60 breach is only against company (Anglo) officials.

[Rois]

I'll be really interested to see how this works out.  I've done a few "financial assistance" pieces of work previously when our clients were facilitating/funding acquisitions and we went down the special resolution route set out similar to s.60.  That legislation no longer exists in the UK so haven't encountered it in a while.

[gerrykeegan]

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?

I certainly took from this you were suggesting that the Quinns (under Section 60) were looking to have the loans voided. Hound pointed out that even voidable loans are still due.

[supersarsfields]

Yeah the Quinns are looking to get the Loans voided due to breaches under section 60. But those breaches are by Anglo not the Quinns. Your line

I also can't see how Quinn could say he was unaware of  Section 60. He was borrowing money to meet the margin calls. How could you argue, Jesus I didn't think that might be against company law. Not when you have surrounded yourself with a team of lawyers.

implies that you think it was the Quinns that were in breach of section 60.

Hound also says

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).

And considering Anglo used the personal guarantees to take control of the Quinn group and the foreign assets this would throw whether that was legal into doubt.

[gerrykeegan]

Yeah the Quinns are looking to get the Loans voided due to breaches under section 60. But those breaches are by Anglo not the Quinns. Your line

I also can't see how Quinn could say he was unaware of  Section 60. He was borrowing money to meet the margin calls. How could you argue, Jesus I didn't think that might be against company law. Not when you have surrounded yourself with a team of lawyers.

implies that you think it was the Quinns that were in breach of section 60.

Hound also says

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).

And considering Anglo used the personal guarantees to take control of the Quinn group and the foreign assets this would throw whether that was legal into doubt.

First of all you are way better at using the quote feature than me! But I will try.

My

I also can't see how Quinn could say he was unaware of  Section 60. He was borrowing money to meet the margin calls. How could you argue, Jesus I didn't think that might be against company law. Not when you have surrounded yourself with a team of lawyers.

was actually in response to Hound saying

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).

If the loans are still due (be it legitimate or voidable) then Anglo would still have been able to take over the group, would they not?

[supersarsfields]

I've only just got on to this quoting lark lately myself.  Not quite up to EG standard but i'm learning!!

I think the whole Company 60 bit got mixed up previously and may have been due to me not explaining it right the first time. But the breaches of it were by Anglo loaning money to re-invest it in itself. From my understanding The Quinns aren't liable under the company's act as they aren't part of the company doing the lending (They may be liable for under other laws or sections I honestly don't know).

As regards to whether the loans were enforceable I don't know. If the personal guarantees and the securities were voided as well. I honestly don't know how that affects how the loans can be enforced or what they could go after?  Maybe Hound could advise?

[supersarsfields]

I'd imagine the sham last night is hardly good news for the Quinn family. Will this be enough to prevent them taking their compensation case against IBRC considering it will cease to exist? Or will it transfer onto Nama?

[supersarsfields]

Well from reading the draft all proceedings against IBRC are halted, while NAMA are still able to continue with all cases on behalf of the IBRC. Sounds like a win win suitation for the State.

[FermGael]

 Quinn family to fight Ireland debt deal in court

Rodney Edwards • Published 7 Feb 2013 20:20   


The Quinn family will challenge parts of Ireland's new debt legislation in court, impartialreporter.com can reveal.

The former Anglo Irish Bank was liquidated last night after Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny passed emergency legislation to restructure payments for loans borrowed to bail-out Anglo. The deal agreed by the European Central Bank means the repayments have been placed into a long-term bond lasting 40 years.

The development has resulted in the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation - the entity made up of the former Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society -- being wound up and all of its assets being transferred to the National Management Agency (NAMA).

The Bill also provides for an immediate stay on all proceedings against IBRC and no further action can be issued against the bank without the consent of the High Court. It also states that IBRC is taking a number of actions against prominent developers over recovery of debts.

Essentially that means the family of former Fermanagh businessman Sean Quinn can no longer sue Anglo/IBRC over the legality of €2.3 billion in debts, but the bank can still sue them in order to recover what it says the family owe.

In terms of the Quinn story, today's development is extraordinary, but what happens next could be even more unprecedented.

In a bold move, impartialreporter.com understands the family will challenge the legislation in court.

And in addition to suing the former Anglo Irish Bank and the receiver of the Quinn Group, we can also reveal that the Quinn family is to sue the Irish Regulator and the Department of Finance as well.

"It would appear there are constitutional issues and so this is yet another hurdle for the family, but the Quinns will fight this in the days, months and years ahead."

"The legislation was passed hoping the family would drop their case, but that won't be happening. The family is very confident of achieving a positive result and are more determined than ever," said a source

[trileacman]

Essentially that means the family of former Fermanagh businessman Sean Quinn can no longer sue Anglo/IBRC over the legality of €2.3 billion in debts, but the bank can still sue them in order to recover what it says the family owe.

Don't see how that would appear fair to any reasonable person.