Lenihan indemnifies Anglo Irish directors

Akrasia

According to yesterdays Sunday Business Post, Brian Lenihan has signed an indemnity in secret to protect the corrupt directors of Anglo Irish Bank from any personal losses arising from any legal action brought against them.

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=MARKETS-qqqs=themarket-qqqid=41906-qqqx=1.asp
The new articles contain a clause indemnifying individual Anglo directors from legal actions taken on foot of ‘‘acts, receipts, neglects or defaults’’ of any other director or officer.

The indemnity also provides that no director or secretary of Anglo shall be liable for events such as:

* any loss or expense happening to the company through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired by the directors for, or on behalf of, the company’’;

* ‘‘the insufficiency or deficiency of any security in . . . which any of the moneys of the company shall be vested’’;

* ‘‘any loss or damage arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or (wrongful) act by any person with whom moneys, securities or effects shall be deposited’’; or

* ‘‘any other loss, damage or misfortune whatever, which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his office . . . unless the same happens through his own wilful act or default’’.

The new arrangements also provide for indemnity in cases where the director was ‘‘joining in any receipt or other act for conformity’’, and will require Anglo to pay all ‘‘costs, losses and expenses’’ which directors incur or become liable to pay.

So the bank, which we now own will have to pay any compensation awarded in any suit against the directors of Anglo Irish Bank for their negligance.

The government are the only shareholder in this bank, the government has to have approved this new clause in the articles of associatiion and it is a total and utter disgrace.

I can't think of any scenario where this could be considered anything other than an act of corruption.

JonathanAnon

The more I hear about the banking, the more I feel like throwing my hands up in the air. Lenihan is an idiot, unqualified for the job, and should have been replaced after his little "well it didnt jump out at me" episode regarding the Anglo report.

This is the same country that will put you in jail for protesting or not paying the TV license. I mean wtf is going on.

ionix5891

oh dear god

if this is not a nail in FF/Greens coffin then what is?

solice

Jobs for the boys?

thebman

I don't know how anyone can vote for a party this corrupt TBH.

The excuse that the others would be just as bad given half the chance doesn't hold up. At least give someone else a chance before judging them instead of supporting the people that have shown that they are corrupt time and time again.

jmayo

FFS please tell me this is Arpil 1st again :mad:

I despair...
Why doesn't ff reappoint them to state boards to really rub it in.

In any other country just one of their little schemes would probably mean hefty fines if not jail.
We had:
Misleading the markets by having another bank temporarily deposit billions of funds.
Lending money to investors to buy CFDs/shares in the bank itself
Hiding director loans from shareholders

gandalf

Disgusting, but understandable given the organisation was the primary conduit of loans for FF's Developer godfathers. I am sure those directors and officiers have quite a few dodgy stories about connected people to the celtic mafia that the soldiers of destiny have become.

Nodin

Akrasia wrote: »

I can't think of any scenario where this could be considered anything other than an act of corruption.

In the absence of any reason being put forward to the contrary, its rather impossible to disagree.

thebman

jmayo wrote: »

FFS please tell me this is Arpil 1st again :mad:

I despair...
Why doesn't ff reappoint them to state boards to really rub it in.

In any other country just one of their little schemes would probably mean hefty fines if not jail.
We had:
Misleading the markets by having another bank temporarily deposit billions of funds.
Lending money to investors to buy CFDs/shares in the bank itself
Hiding director loans from shareholders

Give them time. I reckon in 6 months or so they will have done this. Probably overseeing (read fooking up) some infrastructure project and harming the public more for decades to come.

Incredible really

Nodin wrote: »

In the absence of any reason being put forward to the contrary, its rather impossible to disagree.

It would be really nice if someone who still intends on voting for FF could give the reason why this and the undisclosed donations isn't changing their mind.

solice

Has this been picked up by other news channels RTE, TV3, Irish Times etc? I havent heard it anywhere else...

ionix5891

solice wrote: »

Has this been picked up by other news channels RTE, TV3, Irish Times etc? I havent heard it anywhere else...

RTE? hahaha the propaganda machine that they are

thebman

solice wrote: »

Has this been picked up by other news channels RTE, TV3, Irish Times etc? I havent heard it anywhere else...

Do you not think it is a reputable source?

solice

thebman wrote: »

Do you not think it is a reputable source?

I do. Im just wondering why it hasnt hit the headlines today. Not alot of people would read the Sunday Business Post in comparison to the Irish Times or the Independent

Liam Byrne

Did the idiot sign that indemnity before or after he didn't read the report that warned about the state of Anglo's finances ?

Who the F**K gave him the right or the mandate to indemnify ANY corrupt scumbag ? :mad:

The Dail is meant to CREATE legislation, not circumvent it!

And could he just as easily give a state pardon to any FF members who are found to be corrupt ?

After this revelation, we should have a General Election TOMORROW.

thebman

I can't think of a single person who wants this to happen that isn't going to gain from it. The only conclusion can be that the government is acting against the people to protect itself and its interests.

I agree with Liam Byrne's post that we need a general election after this. They obviously aren't acting in the interest of the people with their actions and can't be let remain in power if the are going to go against the people like this to protect themselves.

LookingFor

I'm a constituent of his, REALLY feel like making an appointment at his constituency office and asking him face-to-face for his reasoning on this (and, come to think of it, many other things).

meglome

I naively thought that I couldn't hear news that would piss me off more than I was already, sadly I was wrong. This is just crazy.

ejmaztec

So, next time a company director is accused of fraudulent trading, he will be immediately let off the hook when his lawyers tool themselves up with this "precedent". :pac:

ArmaniJeanss

I've never heard of this sort of indemnity being part of our legal system before.
Can Brian Lenihan (or any other minister) actually do this?

If the Garda Fraud Squad / DPP investigated and considered there was evidence for a prosection, where would this 'indemnity' actually fit into the process?

LoLth

from what I can read of this it looks like:

Director is found to have done wrong. We (the taxpayer) pay to bring him up on charges, we pay to defend him seeign as its related to Anglo Irish, a long drawn out case ensues with solicitors on both sides paid for by us, Government wins! Hefty fine put in place, we pay it. Government loses. Compensation awarded. we pay it.

When did the average taxpayer turn into the humans in AvP ? whichever side wins, we lose......

thebman

LoLth wrote: »

from what I can read of this it looks like:

Director is found to have done wrong. We (the taxpayer) pay to bring him up on charges, we pay to defend him seeign as its related to Anglo Irish, a long drawn out case ensues with solicitors on both sides paid for by us, Government wins! Hefty fine put in place, we pay it. Government loses. Compensation awarded. we pay it.

When did the average taxpayer turn into the humans in AvP ? whichever side wins, we lose......

lol that just looks like it is going to be a tribunal so.

Looks like justice has happened but in reality all they did was employ lawyers for a few years.

bmaxi

It's a General Election à la France 1789 that's needed at this stage. Why arent Bruton and Burton crawling all over this? This is criminal. I have never tried to hide my abhorrence of FF and all they slither for but a vote for them must be tantamount to treason after this.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm a constituent of his, REALLY feel like making an appointment at his constituency office and asking him face-to-face for his reasoning on this (and, come to think of it, many other things).

Please do, and post his excuses (sorry, replies) here.......

Seems you can get away with anything in this country these days once your in with FF.

It's been said to me many a time over the years that, "Ireland is a country for the rich, corrupt, criminals and who you know in government, if you have all these traits you will go far and get away with anything", looks like it's true :mad:

Liam Byrne

I've used the contact form on their website to send on the link above and ask them for an explanation....

Also going to forward it to The Last Word and see if Matt can get them to comment....

givyjoe81

I literally cannot get my head around this if it is true... Why on earth would Lenihan put this in place which would effectively prevent ANY of these guys being brought to justice.

I have being thinking for a while, why these guys havent been done under fraudulent or reckless trading, where you CAN (as far as my legal knowledge serves me correctly) be made personally liable for the debts of the company, up to imprisonment?? Not too sure about the latter.

So why on earth deny the whole country what they desperately want to see, i.e. these guys being made to account for what they have done, and effectively commit political suicide, as if tying their neuse themselves wasnt already enough.

Complely Illogical.

jimmycrackcorm

Maybe I read it wrong but when I did, I assumed that the indemnity was to cover any actions that might be taken by the directors going forward and not retrospective.

thebman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Maybe I read it wrong but when I did, I assumed that the indemnity was to cover any actions that might be taken by the directors going forward and not retrospective.

Why would it be needed going forward? Better again why should it be acceptable to have it going forward?

peasant

Has anyone found any other sources for this story? Not that I don't believe the Sunday Business Post ...I just find it unbelievable, full stop.

And if it's true ...wouldn't now be the time for pitchforks and torches?

thebman

Wasn't on RTE news that I saw but only caught second half of the news.

Stabshauptmann

Lets look at this indemnity and try put it into lay man terms. I dont think its as bad as people think.

First off, there are a lot of ongoing investigations into the goings on in Anglo Irish Bank.

By my count there are probes by

1. The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement;
2. the Garda Fraud Squad;
3. the Financial Regulator;
4. the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority;
5. the Chartered Accountants Regulatory Board's;
   
6. and the bank's own review involving an independent firm of solicitors and including a senior counsel.

The first two have implications for individual directors, the fourth and fifth have implications for anglo's auditors - the CARB can impose fines of up to €30,000 on individual accountancy firms and €30,000 per partner in a member firm, if a case of misconduct is proven.

Now lets look at how these new articles impact on the above investigations. From my reading of this, the indemnity does not cover the directors from fraud or the irregularities surrounding the migrating loans.

My understanding is that they cover specific instances where the directors made bad decision while they were acting honestly and within their authority on behalf of the company.


Directors are only ever held personally responsible for "bad decisions" where they acted fraudulently, recklessly, or beyond the scope of their authority.

I dont think that there is any change to a companies articles of association that can change that.

Let us examine the articles.

The new articles contain a clause indemnifying individual Anglo directors from legal actions taken on foot of ‘‘acts, receipts, neglects or defaults’’ of any other director or officer.

I am not a legal professional, but does that not mean that the directors are responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of other directors. I think that sounds fair.

The indemnity also provides that no director or secretary of Anglo shall be liable for events such as:

* any loss or expense happening to the company through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired by the directors for, or on behalf of, the company’’;

This is a tricky one, and the only article that seems dodge to me. The insufficiency of title I take to mean the decision by a director to accept certain types of collateral which are now not worth as much as expected. A bad business decision, but so long as its made honestly, I dont see why the director should be liable. Why the deficiency of title would be tolerated I dont know.

Its like the director said, I know Pat, hes good for it, we dont need collateral from him. Thats reckless. Thats not in the shareholders best interest, and if this is connected to the issue of directors loans this is completely unacceptable to me.

BUT, I dont know the ins and outs, its just what Im reading into it/

* ‘‘the insufficiency or deficiency of any security in . . . which any of the moneys of the company shall be vested’’;

A bank typically has a lot of money which it invests. What this article is saying that if the bank invested in X (stocks, property, funds, gold etc), and X is now worth less than when it was bought, thats not the directors fault.
Personally, thats more or less fair, but there is the question of recklessness and duty of care. I dont think this article actually protects the directors if they were reckless but Im no legal eagle.

* ‘‘any loss or damage arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or (wrongful) act by any person with whom moneys, securities or effects shall be deposited’’; or

More or less the same as above. If the bank for example didnt invest its money but put it on deposit with a number of other banks, and they were to go bankrupt, the director who made the decision to deposit money with that bank isnt to be held personally liable.

* ‘‘any other loss, damage or misfortune whatever, which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his office . . . unless the same happens through his own wilful act or default’’.

This is the key clause. If a director acted honestly and within his power, but his decision lead to a loss for the bank, he wont be personally liable to the bank for that loss.

To me that makes sense, and its the type of protection I would expect the director of a company to enjoy. What these articles will do is save time and money on pointless civil suits that would fail anyway.

Also to say that this is a state pardon is incorrect, the fact that the state is the only shareholder doesnt give these articles any greater effect than the articles of any other company. I dont think a company can not write articles into its Arts of Association that contrevene the companies acts or other statues.

Stabshauptmann

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Maybe I read it wrong but when I did, I assumed that the indemnity was to cover any actions that might be taken by the directors going forward and not retrospective.

It covers future court actions, which most likely would be the result of past actions.

thebman

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

This is a tricky one, and the only article that seems dodge to me. The insufficiency of title I take to mean the decision by a director to accept certain types of collateral which are now not worth as much as expected. A bad business decision, but so long as its made honestly, I dont see why the director should be liable. Why the deficiency of title would be tolerated I dont know.

Its like the director said, I know Pat, hes good for it, we dont need collateral from him. Thats reckless. Thats not in the shareholders best interest, and if this is connected to the issue of directors loans this is completely unacceptable to me.

BUT, I dont know the ins and outs, its just what Im reading into it/

Isn't this exactly what was going on in Anglo though?

They were lending money to people to buy shares with the share themselves as the only security for the loan.

That would seem to be exactly what they are trying to protect the directors from.

I agree that it won't over ride the law as it can't obviously do that but it does absolve them of responsibility for poor actions in their jobs completely making them not personally responsible for their actions that might have brought the bank to its knee's and now the tax payer is being asked to pay for that and has to bail them out (which is debatable in itself).

Looks more like they were bailed out to protect them and this is further protection for these "friends" of FF. That's what it looks like and that is why it is so unacceptable.

meathstevie

Loose from the fact that baling out the banks the way they have been baled out while companies that actualy do something tangible are let go to the wall sickens me what is the reason for this ?

To the best of my knowledge not a single company director has ever been sanctioned in court or by regulatory authorities unless their actions were fraudulent or criminal.

So why the need for this indemnity deal ? Ok the old boys club will be down a few members for a little while but it's amazing how quick some people "recover" from such little mishaps.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

holy fcuking christ on a crutch ( sorry Mr Ahern - you c.unt )

why arent we dragging these people out of dail eireann and shooting them ?

Stabshauptmann

thebman wrote: »

Isn't this exactly what was going on in Anglo though?

They were lending money to people to buy shares with the share themselves as the only security for the loan.

That would seem to be exactly what they are trying to protect the directors from.

No, I dont think that clause covers that.

My take is that this is has to do with a) Anglo's loan approval policy and b) possibly cases where director's intervened to over ride this policy.

All this is just my reading / theory. The later is pure speculation - I have no solid reason to believe that even happened.


There are laws about lending money to invest in ones own company. I do not know the remit of the Director of Corporate Enforcement's investigation but Id bet money this is on it.

AlekSmart

I am still caught in a Kalidescope of images from the day Bernie Madoff was led from his Ney York apartment in handcuffs AND leg chains.....whilst back in the real world our Irish Independent carried a picture of a smiling Seanie Fitz on the tee at Greystones.....The correlation between the two images said it all....no words were required ! :eek:

Stabshauptmann

meathstevie wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge not a single company director has ever been sanctioned in court or by regulatory authorities unless their actions were fraudulent or criminal.

So why the need for this indemnity deal ?

I dont know that kind of legal precedent, but my take is that these articles were seen as a mere efficiency item to save time and money.

There are a number of pending civil actions against the bank and the directors. Im not in the legal profession, but to me they dont seem well founded or winable.

Under the companies existing rules the company covered a directors costs in any legal proceedings if they are found innocent. Under these rules the directors will be spared the cost of defending themselves from certain civil actions.

Defending oneself can be incredibly expensive. I think a day in the high court costs about 20k. Someones life could be ruined defending a frivolous action.

Or perhaps these articles in some way facilitate the possible pending criminal proceedings. I dont know.

FTA69

Off to the salt mines with the lot of them. B*stards.

LostinBlanch

So this is nothing to do with the Anglo 10 then? Remember them?

Stabshauptmann

Maybe, but I dont think so.

givyjoe81

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Lets look at this indemnity and try put it into lay man terms. I dont think its as bad as people think.



My understanding is that they cover specific instances where the directors made bad decision while they were acting honestly and within their authority on behalf of the company.


Directors are only ever held personally responsible for "bad decisions" where they acted fraudulently, recklessly, or beyond the scope of their authority.


More or less the same as above. If the bank for example didnt invest its money but put it on deposit with a number of other banks, and they were to go bankrupt, the director who made the decision to deposit money with that bank isnt to be held personally liable.


This is the key clause. If a director acted honestly and within his power, but his decision lead to a loss for the bank, he wont be personally liable to the bank for that loss.

With regard to your first point, well if the directors were acting honestly, they would NOT need such a clause, simple as really. So there was no need to introduce this indemnity.

Directors are held personally responsible if they have acted fraudulently, recklessly etc, which is EXACTLY what the directors in the high profile recent did.

Also, law which is enacted, cannot be deployed retrspecitively, as far as i recall, so logically such an indemnity would not apply restrospectively to cover the actions of directors recently stepped down.

Hasschu

If the management and Directors were to be charged and appear in court it would be a disaster for the government. As the story unfolded it would be obvious that the government was deeply involved every step of the way. The cronyism goes on nonstop and will only end when the ECB or IMF takes control of the country. There are benefits to EU membership they may save us from our dysfunctional politics.

Stabshauptmann

givyjoe81 wrote: »

With regard to your first point, well if the directors were acting honestly, they would NOT need such a clause, simple as really. So there was no need to introduce this indemnity.

Why not?

Directors are held personally responsible if they have acted fraudulently, recklessly etc, which is EXACTLY what the directors in the high profile recent did.

What change has been made to who instances like these are dealt with?

Also, law which is enacted, cannot be deployed retrspecitively, as far as i recall, so logically such an indemnity would not apply restrospectively to cover the actions of directors recently stepped down.

Actually they can, but thats irrelevant because this isnt a law.

oscarBravo

DaDumTish wrote: »

why arent we dragging these people out of dail eireann and shooting them ?

Because it's illegal. If you have nothing more constructive to contribute to this forum than advocating violence, I strongly suggest that you resist the urge to post.

That applies across the board. Remember: discussion forum. Not rant platform.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because it's illegal. If you have nothing more constructive to contribute to this forum than advocating violence, I strongly suggest that you resist the urge to post.

That applies across the board. Remember: discussion forum. Not rant platform.

Yep stringing them up from a lamp post with piano wire is illegal.

Of course them carrying out insider trading, breaking normal company law by using company loans to buy shares, misleading shareholders & the markets and hiding director loans, thus resulting in the taxpayers of this country having to suffer even poorer health services and education because we have to stump up billions for the rest of our days to save these corrupt ill run banks is not illegal or only slightly illegal maybe it seems.

Any chance new government could quickly pass a law to make it illegal to drag the name of the country through the gutter, you know a charge a bit like bringing the game into disrepute in soccer ?
Saying that half the churchmen/women in the country would be in the nick as well.

Stabshauptmann

jmayo wrote: »

Of course them carrying out insider trading, breaking normal company law by using company loans to buy shares, misleading shareholders & the markets and hiding director loans...is not illegal or only slightly illegal maybe it seems.

How so?

solice

jmayo wrote: »

Any chance new government could quickly pass a law to make it illegal to drag the name of the country through the gutter

A quick ammendment to the Blasphemous Bill would do - Do not take the lords name in vain*

I am no legal expert but the idea of offering these people an indemnity sickens me in the same way that 800 of the worst offenders in the Ryan Report were given an indemnity against prosecution.

Giving people a "get out of jail free card" in order to speed the process up is harldy in the spirit of the law. Justice must be served and I can only imagine how many hours, days, weeks and months will be wasted by prosecution lawyers (if it even gets to court) trying to bring this hurdle down.

The idea that the directors would have to pay the legal bills themselves if they were found guilty is only just and fair. Fine, if they are found innocent let the bank cover the costs, but if they are found guilty then they should be held personally liable. Those were the conditions that they worked under when they made these dodgy deals, those are the conditions that they should be prosecuted under.

Bringing these people to court would hardly constitue a frivilous claim. They themselves having to pay for their own defence seems only natural no matter how many thousands it is. After all, its not like they can claim for free legal aid, they have the financial ability to pay for any defence. They made sure of that a long time ago...

* Lord = Church & State aka The Republic of Ireland

jmayo

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

How so?

How so ?

Lets transpose Anglo to US and see what would be the opinion regarding rent a deposit scheme they had going with IL&P or the fact they lent money to 10 connected individuals to buy CFDs in Anglo actaully apparently secured on the shares themselves. AFAIK that contravenees even company law in Ireland ?

Then we can see the director loans being moved back and forth to another institution.

Has anybody in Ireland ever done time for insider trading ?
Will anybody from Anglo ever do time ?
I very much doubt it.
Will anybody from Anglo even be hauled before the courts ?
Who knows but they will either find a lack of evidence, they nothing illegal technically or some other out.

Meanwhile the international community have written us off as a bunch of chancers and after last week a bunch of peadophiles.

sovtek

DaDumTish wrote: »

holy fcuking christ on a crutch ( sorry Mr Ahern - you c.unt )

why arent we dragging these people out of dail eireann and shooting them ?

I've been asking that question for a few years now.

Stabshauptmann

jmayo wrote: »

How so ?

Lets transpose Anglo to US and see what would be the opinion regarding rent a deposit scheme they had going with IL&P or the fact they lent money to 10 connected individuals to buy CFDs in Anglo actaully apparently secured on the shares themselves. AFAIK that contravenees even company law in Ireland ?

Then we can see the director loans being moved back and forth to another institution.

Has anybody in Ireland ever done time for insider trading ?
Will anybody from Anglo ever do time ?
I very much doubt it.
Will anybody from Anglo even be hauled before the courts ?
Who knows but they will either find a lack of evidence, they nothing illegal technically or some other out.

Meanwhile the international community have written us off as a bunch of chancers and after last week a bunch of peadophiles.

You're obviously an expert on the subject, so since you've read the thread, and know what you're talking about, could you please explain it in lay man's Enlish

I'm presuming you read the thread to date. At the very least you couldnt have missed the longest post in this thread.

Since you are certain that I am misinterpreting these articles, can you please break them down into lay man's English for me.

Also, since you're disagreeing with my understanding of Irish law, can you explain to me how changes to the Articles of Association have over written Company Law.

Granted Ive only studied company law at undergrad level, so please break it down into nice manageable chunks that I can understand.

How do these changes affect the 6 named investigations into Anglo?
Sorry how foolish of me, you've already made it clear these ongoing investigations have been scrapped. Sorry to waste your valuable time.