Quinn Insurance in Administration

[INDIANA]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

[TabClear]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

Was it Sean personally who was liable for the margin calls or the Group?

[muppet]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

Was it Sean personally who was liable for the margin calls or the Group?

Good question, I don't know what collateral the CFD House had, but they don't take losses or risk when entering a CFD, so it is likely everything was on the line. McCaffrey (correct name?) sent a letter to Anglo once they got involved putting up the QG as collateral.

[TabClear]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

Was it Sean personally who was liable for the margin calls or the Group?

Good question, I don't know what collateral the CFD House had, but they don't take losses or risk when entering a CFD, so it is likely everything was on the line. McCaffrey (correct name?) sent a letter to Anglo once they got involved putting up the QG as collateral.

that's what I thought. I remember reading about that letter and could never understand it. From a group perspective what had they to gain and everything to lose? I would have thought taking on liability of that size wound have needed bond holder approval?

[muppet]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

Was it Sean personally who was liable for the margin calls or the Group?

Good question, I don't know what collateral the CFD House had, but they don't take losses or risk when entering a CFD, so it is likely everything was on the line. McCaffrey (correct name?) sent a letter to Anglo once they got involved putting up the QG as collateral.

that's what I thought. I remember reading about that letter and could never understand it. From a group perspective what had they to gain and everything to lose? I would have thought taking on liability of that size wound have needed bond holder approval?

They stood to gain the loans to cover the margin calls and keep the CFD House wolf from the door. At that point in time, if they believed Anglo's share price falling was temporary, they may have thought this was a good thing. Hindsight obviously tells us the opposite.

[TabClear]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

Was it Sean personally who was liable for the margin calls or the Group?

Good question, I don't know what collateral the CFD House had, but they don't take losses or risk when entering a CFD, so it is likely everything was on the line. McCaffrey (correct name?) sent a letter to Anglo once they got involved putting up the QG as collateral.

that's what I thought. I remember reading about that letter and could never understand it. From a group perspective what had they to gain and everything to lose? I would have thought taking on liability of that size wound have needed bond holder approval?

They stood to gain the loans to cover the margin calls and keep the CFD House wolf from the door. At that point in time, if they believed Anglo's share price falling was temporary, they may have thought this was a good thing. Hindsight obviously tells us the opposite.

How would they have benefitted from this? I understand that if the share price had went up they would have had the profit, same as anyone else. But it was a massive risk. Clearly the whole thing only happened because of who Sean Quinn was. But

a) If he was not a group Shareholder, surely McCaffrey or whoever the Group CEO was could not have given collateral over group assets without considering directors duties to act in the best interest of the company?
b) If you make the argument that (a) did nt apply because they thought the share price would rise and the Group stood to make a profit, given the size of the investment in shares relative to the size of the company, I would have thought that any bond agreement would have negative pledge clauses stopping the Board from making such a material change to the Group strategy/Balance Sheet without bond holder approval. These would be relatively standard. At the end of the day the bond holders (pension funds/fund managers etc) didn't invest how many £100s of millions to let Liam McCaffrey decide how the stock market was going to go. They have plenty of their own people to do that.

I'm no lawyer and am sure that everything was covered off but it just seems bizarre in terms of how lax everything was in terms of paperwork.

[seafoid]

The Quinns didn't understand how serious the 08 crash was. They didn't understand the risks.
They weren't the only ones. Look at Tony O'Reilly.

[muppet]

If Anglo hadn't loaned the money he would have had to close out earlier than he did. He would have missed the St paddys day massacre. He could have been in a position to service the debt at that stage. Of course that meant dropping a load of Anglo shares on the market which would have hit their share price. And that's when Anglo stepped in.

He couldn't cash in because he couldn't make the margin calls. And had his brokerage made him cash in the bank would have collapsed.

Was it Sean personally who was liable for the margin calls or the Group?

Good question, I don't know what collateral the CFD House had, but they don't take losses or risk when entering a CFD, so it is likely everything was on the line. McCaffrey (correct name?) sent a letter to Anglo once they got involved putting up the QG as collateral.

that's what I thought. I remember reading about that letter and could never understand it. From a group perspective what had they to gain and everything to lose? I would have thought taking on liability of that size wound have needed bond holder approval?

They stood to gain the loans to cover the margin calls and keep the CFD House wolf from the door. At that point in time, if they believed Anglo's share price falling was temporary, they may have thought this was a good thing. Hindsight obviously tells us the opposite.

How would they have benefitted from this? I understand that if the share price had went up they would have had the profit, same as anyone else. But it was a massive risk. Clearly the whole thing only happened because of who Sean Quinn was. But

a) If he was not a group Shareholder, surely McCaffrey or whoever the Group CEO was could not have given collateral over group assets without considering directors duties to act in the best interest of the company?
b) If you make the argument that (a) did nt apply because they thought the share price would rise and the Group stood to make a profit, given the size of the investment in shares relative to the size of the company, I would have thought that any bond agreement would have negative pledge clauses stopping the Board from making such a material change to the Group strategy/Balance Sheet without bond holder approval. These would be relatively standard. At the end of the day the bond holders (pension funds/fund managers etc) didn't invest how many £100s of millions to let Liam McCaffrey decide how the stock market was going to go. They have plenty of their own people to do that.

I'm no lawyer and am sure that everything was covered off but it just seems bizarre in terms of how lax everything was in terms of paperwork.

When Sean Fitzpatrick met Quinn he told him to unwind the shareholding. Quinn went out and bought more. According to Carswells book, the Anglo management believed that SQ bought shares, drove the price up and then bought more shares because he saw the price went up. SQ appeared to have great faith in Anglo and its share price, ridiculous as it seems now.

As for the rest of your post, I have stated here before that I don't understand why the Quinn children, and any other shareholders of the Quinn Group, haven't taken action against SQ and McCaffrey.

[TabClear]

Muppet, what right has Sean Fitzpatrick to tell Sean Quinn or any individual what to do??.

He (SF) was running a listed company so he was legally obliged to give the correct information to the market. After that whatever anybody decides as far a share price goes, up to them. FFS I lost money on Anglo, Sean Fitz did nt ring me or meet me in a hotel to tell me not to buy (Quite the opposite as it happens) but if you don't want to take risks then the stock market is not for you.

I'm not defending SQ here, like I say I lost money on Anglo. But, I knew the risks. As far as I am concerned Anglo have a lot more to answer for here than SQ as an individual. I understand that subsequent events means that the burden falls on the taxpayer but that does not mean that it is wrong and the family cannot seek compensation.



I do think the whole things was badly managed both sides (understatement of 2014), but, the aim now should be to maximise the return to stakeholders. Bottom line as far as I am concerned is that there is more for everyone if SQ is back running the ship.

[muppet]

Muppet, what right has Sean Fitzpatrick to tell Sean Quinn or any individual what to do??.

He (SF) was running a listed company so he was legally obliged to give the correct information to the market. After that whatever anybody decides as far a share price goes, up to them. FFS I lost money on Anglo, Sean Fitz did nt ring me or meet me in a hotel to tell me not to buy (Quite the opposite as it happens) but if you don't want to take risks then the stock market is not for you.

I'm not defending SQ here, like I say I lost money on Anglo. But, I knew the risks. As far as I am concerned Anglo have a lot more to answer for here than SQ as an individual. I understand that subsequent events means that the burden falls on the taxpayer but that does not mean that it is wrong and the family cannot seek compensation.



I do think the whole things was badly managed both sides (understatement of 2014), but, the aim now should be to maximise the return to stakeholders. Bottom line as far as I am concerned is that there is more for everyone if SQ is back running the ship.

What right? He was chairman of a bank meeting a man he thought was about to collapse that bank with a daft financial instrument. I'm sure your investment wasn't quite as threatening.

[TabClear]

Muppet, what right has Sean Fitzpatrick to tell Sean Quinn or any individual what to do??.

He (SF) was running a listed company so he was legally obliged to give the correct information to the market. After that whatever anybody decides as far a share price goes, up to them. FFS I lost money on Anglo, Sean Fitz did nt ring me or meet me in a hotel to tell me not to buy (Quite the opposite as it happens) but if you don't want to take risks then the stock market is not for you.

I'm not defending SQ here, like I say I lost money on Anglo. But, I knew the risks. As far as I am concerned Anglo have a lot more to answer for here than SQ as an individual. I understand that subsequent events means that the burden falls on the taxpayer but that does not mean that it is wrong and the family cannot seek compensation.



I do think the whole things was badly managed both sides (understatement of 2014), but, the aim now should be to maximise the return to stakeholders. Bottom line as far as I am concerned is that there is more for everyone if SQ is back running the ship.

What right? He was chairman of a bank meeting a man he thought was about to collapse that bank with a daft financial instrument. I'm sure your investment wasn't quite as threatening.

But it was legal. CFDs might not be the preferred option for a Chairman of a listed company as you cannot necessarily tell who owns your company but it was within the law. Its the price you pay for listing on the stock exchange and accessing the capital markets. SF might not have liked it but the argument is that his actions were driven by supporting the share price, and that is getting into company law territory, hence the family's case.

[muppet]

Muppet, what right has Sean Fitzpatrick to tell Sean Quinn or any individual what to do??.

He (SF) was running a listed company so he was legally obliged to give the correct information to the market. After that whatever anybody decides as far a share price goes, up to them. FFS I lost money on Anglo, Sean Fitz did nt ring me or meet me in a hotel to tell me not to buy (Quite the opposite as it happens) but if you don't want to take risks then the stock market is not for you.

I'm not defending SQ here, like I say I lost money on Anglo. But, I knew the risks. As far as I am concerned Anglo have a lot more to answer for here than SQ as an individual. I understand that subsequent events means that the burden falls on the taxpayer but that does not mean that it is wrong and the family cannot seek compensation.



I do think the whole things was badly managed both sides (understatement of 2014), but, the aim now should be to maximise the return to stakeholders. Bottom line as far as I am concerned is that there is more for everyone if SQ is back running the ship.

What right? He was chairman of a bank meeting a man he thought was about to collapse that bank with a daft financial instrument. I'm sure your investment wasn't quite as threatening.

But it was legal. CFDs might not be the preferred option for a Chairman of a listed company as you cannot necessarily tell who owns your company but it was within the law. Its the price you pay for listing on the stock exchange and accessing the capital markets. SF might not have liked it but the argument is that his actions were driven by supporting the share price, and that is getting into company law territory, hence the family's case.

I didn't say it was illegal.

You asked what right had SF to ask Quinn to sell. To use your answer, it was perfectly legal. But to go further, board members talk to major shareholders all the time and vice versa. The latter are who appoint the board members.

[Applesisapples]

It is disturbing what the governments are doing with Northern Ireland. The governments and political parties have brought in the "accountants" who have advised them that they must reduce the size of the public sector ( 20000 jobs must go ) and the private sector must be grown.

And the main parties have said " not a problem".

They have no choice the tax payers of England are no longer prepared to pay for the upkeep of this part of Ireland.

[Rossfan]

Reality coming to rhe 6 Cos.

[seafoid]

Reality coming to rhe 6 Cos.

The reality of the sit you ay shun