Quinn Insurance in Administration

[supersarsfields]

My loyality to the Quinns doesn't make anything I say any the less relevant.

You need every penny you can get when your being screwed through the courts.

[EC Unique]

I love the use of the word "unfortunate"  to describe a situation where my pocket will be robbed by the rich and famous to pay the rich including the "poor Quinns".
Blaming Cowen and Company is a bit like blaming the Guards if there's an increase in robberies.
However one good thing is that those people in the 6 Cos who are so enthusiastically backing the Quinns will also be paying for this mess after re unification 

So how much is this taking out of your 'pocket' then Rossfan?

About €35 per week since 2009 and to continue till 2035 = €45,000 give or take an oul € here or there ( at 2013 prices). I presume th'oul pension will be reduced by then as well so ......

Where does the 35euros a week figure come from?

Increased tax( through reduced credits) and  new Universal Social charge plus Public Service Pension Levy imposed.
I checked my last payslip of 2008 against my latest one.

Mmm nonsense  just as I suspected.

Why not blame him for cancer?

[Rossfan]

You need every penny you can get when your being screwed through the courts.

The Quinns are the ones screwing the courts.

[Rossfan]

I love the use of the word "unfortunate"  to describe a situation where my pocket will be robbed by the rich and famous to pay the rich including the "poor Quinns".Blaming Cowen and Company is a bit like blaming the Guards if there's an increase in robberies.
However one good thing is that those people in the 6 Cos who are so enthusiastically backing the Quinns will also be paying for this mess after re unification 

So how much is this taking out of your 'pocket' then Rossfan?

About €35 per week since 2009 and to continue till 2035 = €45,000 give or take an oul € here or there ( at 2013 prices). I presume th'oul pension will be reduced by then as well so ......

Where does the 35euros a week figure come from?

Increased tax( through reduced credits) and  new Universal Social charge plus Public Service Pension Levy imposed.
I checked my last payslip of 2008 against my latest one.

Mmm nonsense  just as I suspected.

Read my post y'eejit.

[supersarsfields]

You need every penny you can get when your being screwed through the courts.

The Quinns are the ones screwing the courts.

Sure the quinns can't even get to the courts. It's brave and handy being able to introduce laws whenever you want to avoid bits you don't like!!

[EC Unique]

Quinn made a few mistakes alright but it is evident that he and his team are much more switched on than any Irish government or court. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in the coming months/years in the courts.

[supersarsfields]

Good news for the Quinns!



A HIGH Court decision today means the courts have the power to allow existing actions against Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), including that by the family of bankrupt businessman Sean Quinn, to proceed.


Confusion had arisen as to whether the courts had jurisdiction to lift the "immediate stay" in the new IBRC Act halting all proceedings against the bank.  The Act, enacted last month, provides for no stay on proceedings by the bank against others.

About one third of existing cases before the Commercial Court are against IBRC and the stay has caused uncertainty whether any steps at all may be taken in relation to them with several judges raising the issue since the Act came into force.

In his decision today, Mr Justice Sean Ryan said it was "impossible to conceive" the Oireachtas had, via the stay in Section 6.2.a of the Act, terminated the Quinns' case "in an instant" and deprived them of the right to apply to court.

Any such interpretation would involve "extensive and substantial interference with Constitutional rights in modes that are discriminatory and unjustified and unnecessary in the circumstances".

There was an "undoubtedly puzzling" distinction between the "immediate stay" in Section 6.2.a  and the wording of Section 6.2.b, which states "..no further actions or proceedings can be issued against IBRC without the consent of the court", he noted.

Having analysed the provision, he concluded it was "manifest" that "a fair, proper and constitutional interpretation", and a similar approach based on common law, lead to the "inevitable conclusion" the stay in the Quinn case was intended to be subject to being lifted on application to the court.

To say every "existing" proceeding, but not any future action against the bank, whatever its circumstances or consequences was forever prevented from proceeding and without access to the court would be "an astonishing consequence" of the "mere eleven words" of 6.2.a, he said.

The decision means the action by Mrs Patricia Quinn and her children can proceed once the criminal proceedings against former Anglo Irish Bank chairman Sean Fitzpatrick and two senior Anglo executives are concluded. The Quinns allege they have no liability for some €2.34bn loans advanced by Anglo to Quinn companies on grounds those loans were unlawfully made to prop up the bank's share price.

Pre-trial applications can proceed and the Quinns are expected to apply shortly for permission to join the Department of Finance and Central Bank, as regulator, as co-defendants with IBRC to their case.


When lawyers for the Quinns applied last month for the stay to be lifted, the issue whether the court could do so was referred to Mr Justice Ryan for clarification. Lawyers for the Quinns and for IBRC both argued the court could lift the stay and it was never intended to be permanent.

In his decision today, the judge noted the IBRC Act was passed "with great urgency over the course of one night", with the effect of putting IBRC into liquidation. It empowered the Minister for Finance to make a special liquidation order and Section 6 dealt with some of the consequences of that procedure.

The distinction between Section 6.2.a and Section 6.2.b was "undoubtedly puzzling". The words in Section 6.2.a were not unclear but their consequence was unspecified.

There was no specific mention of the court's function in 6.2.a and, if that omission was considered to be a deliberate withholding of the right to apply to have the stay lifted, it would have serious repercussions for the Quinns' case.

It was possible the omission was "a result of haste and urgency" but he could not lightly infer that, he added.

He found the literal wording of Section 6.2.a - "there shall be an immediate stay on all proceedings against IBRC"  - meant it was uncertain whether the stay was temporary or permanent.

However, he also found, there was nothing in that section to indicate the court's jurisdiction was excluded.  If it was intended the stay was to be permanent,  that would come "with heavy baggage", including interference with property rights, access to the courts, separation of powers, invidious discrimination and other issues, he said.

In his view,  "no sensible draftsman or legislator" would simply provide for such deprivation of rights without providing any justifying context or circumstances or without establishing a basis of distinction between existing and future litigants.

[Rossfan]

I see one of the Quinns apparently misbehaving on a train recently 

[sammymaguire]

I see one of the Quinns apparently misbehaving on a train recently 

Oh pray do tell us more!!

[muppet]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sean-quinn-jnr-arrested-after-locking-himself-in-train-toilet-29153306.html

They ordered him off in Offaly. I'd have locked myself in the toilet too.

[Rossfan]

http://www.shannonside.ie/news/arson-attack-unanimously-condemned/

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

[supersarsfields]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/quinn-children-seek-end-to-draconian-injunction-freezing-their-assets-29189910.html

Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor– 11 April 2013

THE children of Sean Quinn, the former billionaire, want a "draconian" injunction order freezing their bank accounts and preventing them controlling their overseas assets to be lifted.

They told the High Court that Finance Minister Michael Noonan should "fortify" an undertaking for damages provided by the former Anglo Irish Bank - to compensate them if they win their main case - if he "believes" in the legal action against the Quinns taken by the now liquidated bank.

The Quinn family claim that a €5m offer by the Special Liquidator of the IBRC, formerly the Anglo Irish Bank - to cover any damages that may be awarded in the future in relation to a complex series of lawsuits between the two sides - is "worthless".

This morning, Martin Hayden SC, for the Quinns, said that the IBRC is insolvent and therefore any offer of damages by its Special Liquidator Kieran Wallace of KPMG are "worthless".

Mr Hayden also said that a cap or limit could not be placed on the damages sought by the Quinn family who say they have "suffered" as a result of the Quinn Group being placed into receivership in April 2011 by the former Anglo Irish Bank.

The Quinns have claimed that if they win their main case against the IBRC, there was no valid security over the main International Property Group (IPG) assets, valued in excess of €500m, which the family say were long-term investments never intended to be sold on a fire-sale basis.

The IBRC Act, providing for the liquidation of IBRC - formerly Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide - was enacted in February after a late-night sitting of the Oireachtas.

When it sought injunctions against members of the Quinn family two years ago, the IBRC was required to give undertakings to pay them any damages should they successfully defend the bank's claims.

The injunctions were sought against all five Quinn adult children and three of their spouses - Niall McPartland, Stephen Kelly and Karen Woods - as well as Peter Darragh Quinn, a nephew of Sean Quinn.

The bank claimed that members of the Quinn family had engaged in a scheme to strip assets from the family's international property group and place them beyond the bank's reach.

The bank was also required to give an undertaking for damages when it sought and secured another set of orders freezing the accounts of the Quinn defendants and appointing a receiver over their assets.

"This case is new country, it is untravelled road," said Mr Hayden in reference to the undertaking for damages.


"This is not a normal liquidation because under the 2013 Act the liquidator cannot be sued," said Mr Hayden adding that the Minister for Finance has "ultimate control" over the IBRC.

Mr Hayden said it was open to Finance Minister Michael Noonan to fortify the undertaking if he "believes" in the case brought by Anglo.

Members of the Quinn family want up to US$500 million to be lodged in court to meet any such award.

Unless this sum is lodged, they say that, given the liquidation of IBRC, the court should lift injunctions granted against them as well as the freezing orders on their accounts.

Sean Quinn Jnr, his sister Aoife Quinn and brother in law Niall McPartland are present for this morning's hearing before High Court judge Mr Justice Michael Peart.

The hearing, expected to last for two days, continues.

[supersarsfields]

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/COMMENT%3A+Quinns+raise+stakes+in+Anglo+case/id/19410615-5218-517f-8614-b820a7032755

It has not gone away, you know.

The bankrupt tycoon is out of prison, while the once simmering unrest on the streets of Cavan and Monaghan appears to have calmed and subsided.
His tormentor, meanwhile, has been executed by the state as part of a grand financial manoeuvre.
Yet, the mammoth dispute between Sean Quinn and his family and the former Anglo Irish Bank rages still.
Yesterday, the two sides were back in court.
The Quinn family told the High Court they are formally seeking to add the Central Bank and the Department of Finance to their €2.4 billion claim against the former Anglo.
The move is not unexpected, but it does raise the stakes.
As soon as the government opted to liquidate Anglo's successor, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), the Quinn family must have realised that their case against the bank was in tatters.
After all, even if they won the case and proved that the loans they had received from Anglo were illegal, they were still stuck in no man's land.
They were suing a bank that was bust and in liquidation. Put bluntly, the bank would have no money and, it appears, no legal obligation, to pay them any damages.
In February, two weeks after the bank was liquidated, I conducted a lengthy interview with the two special liquidators, Kieran Wallace and Eamonn Richardson of KPMG.
I asked them about the impact of the liquidation on the Quinn litigation, suggesting that the family would struggle to enforce any potential damages award.
Wallace responded by saying: "I am not going to talk about their case specifically. But in general, there is a point there.
"A lot of historical claims against the bank will rank as unsecured creditors. They fall behind preferential and secured creditors. Under current projections, there will not be any dividend for unsecured creditors."
Given all this, it makes sense that the family would seek to join the Central Bank and the Department of Finance.
After all, if they win, they need to make sure that someone is in a position to sign and cheque and pay their award.
First though, the family has to convince the High Court that the Central Bank and the department should actually be joined as defendants to the case. The family have 250 hours of transcripts of phone conversation between Anglo and the Department of Finance and the Central Bbank. This will form a key part of their application.
The matter will be heard in June.
It is easy to forget the significance of the case. Arguing that €2.4 billion Anglo lent the money for the "illegal purpose" of propping up the bank's share price, the Quinns are claiming damages for negligence and breach of duty by Anglo and damages for "intentional and/or negligent infliction of economic damage".
They also want a declaration that personal guarantees which they gave over almost €500 million in loans from Anglo to six companies set up in Cyprus in their names are similarly invalid.
This is the biggest commercial court case in the history of the Irish state, by a considerable distance.
The move to add the Department of Finance and the Central Bank to the case thickens the plot.

[orangeman]

The story below belittles the real story recently - i.e that the Quinn faimly have now got proof that Anglo were propping themselves up AND that the government and Dept of Finance in particular knew they were at it.


Somokescreen after somkescreen. Matthew Elderfield might well be gone but Alistair Campbell is still on the books.









SEAN Quinn Jnr has claimed he was subjected to a campaign of victimisation and harassment to oust him from the insurance company founded by his former billionaire father.




He is taking a case before an Employment Appeals Tribunal claiming he was unfairly selected for redundancy following the appointment by the High Court of administrators to Quinn Insurance Limited.

He is understood to have been the only compulsory redundancy out of more than 900 at the insurance firm.

Giving evidence at the opening of the case in Dublin this morning, joint administrator of Quinn Insurance Michael McAteer said it was clear following his appointment on March 30, 2010, that the business needed to be "resized" and around 900 redundancies were required.

Mr Quinn, of Farmleigh Woods, Castleknock, Dublin, was head of UK commerical business on a basic annual salary of €75,000, excluding his bonus.

Mr McAteer, a partner in accountancy firm Grant Thornton, said the buyers of Quinn Insurance, Liberty Mutual, made it clear they did not want to buy the UK insurance book and, as such, Mr Quinn Jnr's position was redundant.



He told how at a "frank" meeting with Mr Quinn Jnr, he was offered a number of alternative positions which were rejected by Mr Quinn Jnr.

Mr Quinn Jnr was dismissed from his job on August 1, 2011.

Opening the hearing, tribunal chairman Tom Ryan said he will be considering whether Mr Quinn Jnr was dismissed because his position was made redundant, or whether it was a case of "dismissal dressed up under the cloak of redundancy."

He said the case will be heard on the basis of its merits, irrespective of the parties involved.

The hearing was adjourned to July at which point Mr Quinn Jnr is expected to give his evidence.

[supersarsfields]

I see Mr Mcateer had to retract part of his statement yesterday.

This is the same impartial administrator who was taped saying

"The Quinns are gone, They will never have an involvement whatsoever in this insurance company ever, ever again. . .

"We can't put that in an email. I can't put it in writing but that's what's going on."

And he said this all long before any decision was made on the sale of Quinn Insurance and while the Quinn proposal was still in the process.