A Solicitor whinges over 71.5 million award against him and his doctor wife

Paddy De Plasterer

High flying corporate lawyer Brian O Donnell feels hard done by over the 71.5 million award made against him two days ago in the commercial court. He and wife who is a doctor had invested heavily in property it seems. Now he claims the bank is coming the heavy on him, and that he is a victim !


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/banks-aggressive-behaviour-has-wrecked-my-business-odonnell-2962921.html

FreudianSlippers

Do you have anything of substance to add or should I just move this to After Hours?

Paddy De Plasterer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Do you have anything of substance to add or should I just move this to After Hours?

Why ? Is this not indicative of the way the high and the mighty carried on during tghe time of the so called Celtic Tiger. Sad thing about this is that mr. O Donnelkl and his wife are unlikely to be able to pay this, so it may well be a burden on us orinary folk, who never got involved in property, and stuck to our chosen careers however humble and ordinary they may have been.

FreudianSlippers

So how is this an issue for Legal Discussion? Because he is a solicitor slash property developer? Because there is judgment?

I fail to see how it belongs here rather than some other more appropriate forum? It is mainly due to your OP - as a general rule on boards, one does not get to just post an article with a small quip without engaging in the discussion themselves.

Sell me on why this belongs here and not AH to have a whinge?

Paddy De Plasterer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So how is this an issue for Legal Discussion? Because he is a solicitor slash property developer? Because there is judgment?

I fail to see how it belong here rather than some other more appropriate forum? It is mainly due to your OP - as a general rule on boards, one does not get to just post an article with a small quip without engaging in the discussion themselves.

Sell me on why this belongs here and not AH to have a whinge?

what forum would you suggest it be on ? Do you not think it is worthy of serious discussion - one of our high flying legal eagles immersing him in speculation for which you and I may have to pay for in the end- like a lot of others in NAMA etc.
If you want to move it to some other forum let me know what you have in mind.It surely is worthy of discussion.

FreudianSlippers

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

what forum would you suggest it be on ? Do you not think it is worthy of serious discussion - one of our high flying legal eagles immersing him in speculation for which you and I may have to pay for in the end- like a lot of others in NAMA etc.
If you want to move it to some other forum let me know what you have in mind.It surely is worthy of discussion.

Then by all means start a discussion. Do not just post a thread that has a link and no worthy discussion starter.

It may be worthy of a discussion, but how is it an issue for Legal Discussion.

Paddy De Plasterer

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Then by all means start a discussion. Do not just post a thread that has a link and no worthy discussion starter.

It may be worthy of a discussion, but how is it an issue for Legal Discussion.

Ok, I am not sure what sure what forum it should be on -justice, property, court judgments, celtic tiger or whatever. But I think there is a lesson here for everyone not to get carried away with following the herd in property, not believing what we read in the papers, sticking to one's chosen profession, etc. I know plenty of people in negative equity just to put a roof over their heads and they cannot walk away from it.

Dades

Moved.

BostonB

If you read the article there's more to it then that very poor topic title.

They are complaining that the banks is not taking the best approach to allow them to reduce the debt. Basically forcing them into a fire sale, which will cost them, the bank and ultimate us the tax payers a lot more in the the long run.

I have no idea which way is best, the fire sale or the longer view. But its does seem to be a knee jerk reaction from the bank. Considering the banks recent track record for good financial common sense or planning.

Perhaps the couple are simple delaying the inevitable and maybe all the facts are not reported either, the standard of reporting these days being quite poor.

El Weirdo

Dades wrote: »

Moved.

Yay!

smash

Of course they'll feel hard done by if they have to pay 71.5m when you actually read the article:

The couple repaid €9.3m earlier this year but the bank did not knock this off what they owe.

In court, Bank of Ireland said the O'Donnells owed €71.5m but the couple dispute this figure. Mr O'Donnell has suggested they owe €63m.

Paddy De Plasterer

smash wrote: »

Of course they'll feel hard done by if they have to pay 71.5m when you actually read the article:

The couple repaid €9.3m earlier this year but the bank did not knock this off what they owe.

In court, Bank of Ireland said the O'Donnells owed €71.5m but the couple dispute this figure. Mr O'Donnell has suggested they owe €63m.

Only 63 million. A lot of money, I would not be able to borrow 63,00(0) never mind 63 million. Quite obviously he got carried away.

Seachmall

Dades wrote: »

Moved.

What? Do we look like a dumping ground for your reject threads?!




Actually, don't answer that

BostonB

Who is better placed to make the money to pay it off. You, me, the bank or him.

BostonB

And also who would you prefer pays it off, You, me, the bank or him.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Who is better placed to make the money to pay it off. You, me, the bank or him.

Not him, he's already umpteen million in the hole.

smash

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Only 63 million. A lot of money, I would not be able to borrow 63,00(0) never mind 63 million. Quite obviously he got carried away.

My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

Snakeblood

smash wrote: »

My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

That would suggest to me that they broke the terms of the loan, though. Which would have two things attached: 1, they aren't paying as they should and 2, they refuse to acknowledge there's a problem that they broke the terms of the loan.

Paddy De Plasterer

smash wrote: »

Of course they'll feel hard done by if they have to pay 71.5m when you actually read the article:

The couple repaid €9.3m earlier this year but the bank did not knock this off what they owe.

In court, Bank of Ireland said the O'Donnells owed €71.5m but the couple dispute this figure. Mr O'Donnell has suggested they owe €63m.

Are you sure oif that ? Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and if that was true I am sure he would have acted on it. I think from reading the papers O Donnell did not turn up to the court hearing, or was not represented, hardly a wise thing to do especially high flying solcitor !

Schism

I kind of agree it it harsh actually.

They are both working people, making what can only be a very tidy income. If the bank opened negotiations with them again, they'd have them tied up in repayments for the rest of their lives. (or at least until bankruptcy)

Then again I guess BoI want's money now and sees this pair as a likely route of payment.

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

Not him, he's already umpteen million in the hole.

Yes but hes has a track record of making big money. He has the potential to be able to do it again, much better than someone who doesn't. The alternative is the tax payer will pick up the tab.

AntiVirus

smash wrote: »

My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

The figure to be paid was not €9.3m, the figue to be paid by the end of last month was €20 million that was already agree in the March settlement. I don't even think they bothered to trun up in court.

AntiVirus

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Are you sure oif that ? Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and if that was true I am sure he would have acted on it. I think from reading the papers O Donnell did not turn up to the court hearing, or was not represented, hardly a wise thing to do especially high flying solcitor !

He's not sure. I don't think he actually knows what the court hearing was for?

Doc Ruby

What in the name of god was the bank doing lending any two private individuals tens of millions. You wouldn't do that for an A-listed actor. I'd love to know where it went though, someone has that money now. There's plenty of tiger cash still out there.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Yes but hes has a track record of making big money. He has the potential to be able to do it again, much better than someone who doesn't. The alternative is the tax payer will pick up the tab.

He's got a track record of losing money, except when there was a ludicrous property bubble.

Paddy De Plasterer

AntiVirus wrote: »

The figure to be paid was not €9.3m, the figue to be paid by the end of last month was €20 million that was already agree in the March settlement. I don't even think they bothered to trun up in court.

You are correct, what a way to treat the court, and Justice Peter Kelly is a very fair man.

ejmaztec

BostonB wrote: »

And also who would you prefer pays it off, You, me, the bank or him.

We had a quick vote on it.

Paddy De Plasterer

i am amazed at all those who defend O Donnell, if he was just an ordinary chap in ne from buying a house, would there be so many rallying to the cause. Irish touching the forelock again ?

opinion guy

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

and stuck to our chosen careers however humble and ordinary they may have been.

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

sticking to one's chosen profession, etc.

Well Paddy De Plasterer, what is this bee in your bonnet you have about sticking to your chosen Profession ? Did you miss your chance to cash in on the celtic tiger or something ? Stuck to plastering whilst these blow in solicitor types came in made buckets of cash and then brought the whole thing crashing down around you ? Now poor Paddy has nothing to plaster ?

Is this your justification for us all to have to pick a career at 21 and do nothing else ?

smash

At the end of the day I'm just sick of people getting high and mighty about others misfortune. No matter how much they owe, it's pretty pathetic.

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

He's got a track record of losing money, except when there was a ludicrous property bubble.

Its a bit more complicated than that isn't it. Property all over the world, much of it leased to good tenants as long term investment, but the mistake was they consolidated all loans to the Irish bank, so once the bank got into trouble they pulled the rug from under him.

myflipflops

Is the fact that his wife is a doctor relevant here in any way?

BostonB

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

i am amazed at all those who defend O Donnell, if he was just an ordinary chap in ne from buying a house, would there be so many rallying to the cause. Irish touching the forelock again ?

No it makes no sense to cut the branch your standing on, just because you don't like it.

You're defending the bank. Is that better.

Paddy De Plasterer

myflipflops wrote: »

Is the fact that his wife is a doctor relevant here in any way?

It might well be - maybe loans were based on that fact, as well as ability to (re)pay . And the papers saw fit to include that in reports.

KERSPLAT!

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Are you sure oif that ? Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and if that was true I am sure he would have acted on it. I think from reading the papers O Donnell did not turn up to the court hearing, or was not represented, hardly a wise thing to do especially high flying solcitor !

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

You are correct, what a way to treat the court, and Justice Peter Kelly is a very fair man.

Is that you Judge??

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Its a bit more complicated than that isn't it. Property all over the world, much of it leased to good tenants as long term investment, but the mistake was they consolidated all loans to the Irish bank, so once the bank got into trouble they pulled the rug from under him.

According to a favourable article written about them, which has direct quotes from him and very little from the bank, yeah. He blames Lehmann's for the disaster, which is theoretically possible, but smells like the standard FFer property collapse excuse.

Paddy De Plasterer

BostonB wrote: »

No it makes no sense to cut the branch your standing on, just because you don't like it.

You're defending the bank. Is that better.

No I am not, as i as a taxpayer may end up paying in the end !

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

According to a favourable article written about them, which has direct quotes from him and very little from the bank, yeah. He blames Lehmann's for the disaster, which is theoretically possible, but smells like the standard FFer property collapse excuse.

I thought he blames the bank.
I also made the point of the poor reporting earlier.

See if the banks at fault for giving the loan, and its therefore the fault of whomever gave the banks the loan. So where did all this money go at the end of the day? The people who loaned it to the banks in the first place. Who is looking to bankrupt everyone and their countries to get their hands on this money? The people who made bad investments, loans in the first place.

Who will end up paying for it. The people who by and large didn't borrow the bulk of these debts.

So my point is, I don't see why they can't wait for their money. They caused the problem in the first place.

fits

BostonB wrote: »

So my point is, I don't see why they can't wait for their money. They caused the problem in the first place.

Because he has high value assets which are still worth a lot of money, and they want this money now.

Paddy De Plasterer

I am sure if he turned up in court and made a reasoned argument, things might have turned out differently.

smash

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

I am sure if he turned up in court and made a reasoned argument, things might have turned out differently.

"The O'Donnells have been Bank of Ireland customers since 1974. But Mr O'Donnell claims the bank has rejected all proposals he has made to repay his massive loans, and that its aggressive behaviour has wrecked his property business.

Instead of considering how to get the best return from their assets, he claims the bank has given them 24-hour notice to pay back everything they owe."

It doesn't matter what the amount was, this is happening all too often!

reprazant

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

I am sure if he turned up in court and made a reasoned argument, things might have turned out differently.

Fcuking LOL!

Paddy De Plasterer

smash wrote: »

"The O'Donnells have been Bank of Ireland customers since 1974. But Mr O'Donnell claims the bank has rejected all proposals he has made to repay his massive loans, and that its aggressive behaviour has wrecked his property business.

Instead of considering how to get the best return from their assets, he claims the bank has given them 24-hour notice to pay back everything they owe."

It doesn't matter what the amount was, this is happening all too often!

But the point i want to make again is that if he tutned up in court and made that argument he might have obtained a far better result for himself. Courts have no great love for Banks.

Frank Black

smash wrote: »

My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

Would a calculator not sort this out?

I have a small casio model which I'm willing to lend the bank/judge if it would help.

Ellis Dee

My heart bleeds for two people who lived off the pig's back, with a luxury ski chalet in France, a multimillion palace in Ireland, etc., etc., and helped puff up the property bubble that inevitably burst and brought the country to its knees. They clearly have not yet shaken off the greed and hubris that gave them such a sense of entitlement.:rolleyes:

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred. :mad::mad:

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

smash

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

But the point i want to make again is that if he tutned up in court and made that argument he might have obtained a far better result for himself. Courts have no great love for Banks.

Yea, that was not going to happen.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred.

No, they could end up worse off. Their company has gone down the tubes and they're at risk of having all assets taken from them. They'll be left with nothing, just so people like you can be happy knowing that.

Wile E. Coyote

Ellis Dee wrote: »

My heart bleeds for two people who lived off the pig's back, with a luxury ski chalet in France, a multimillion palace in Ireland, etc., etc., and helped puff up the property bubble that inevitably burst and brought the country to its knees. They clearly have not yet shaken off the greed and hubris that gave them such a sense of entitlement.:rolleyes:

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred. :mad::mad:

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

I'm not sure what annoys me more. People with a mistaken sense of entitlement or people like you who sit there with a smug grin and enjoy watching someone else lose everything they have.

Paddy De Plasterer

Ellis Dee wrote: »

My heart bleeds for two people who lived off the pig's back, with a luxury ski chalet in France, a multimillion palace in Ireland, etc., etc., and helped puff up the property bubble that inevitably burst and brought the country to its knees. They clearly have not yet shaken off the greed and hubris that gave them such a sense of entitlement.:rolleyes:

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred. :mad::mad:

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

I agree with you totally, and loss of the ski chalet in France must be a terrible blow !

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

I thought he blames the bank.
I also made the point of the poor reporting earlier.

See if the banks at fault for giving the loan, and its therefore the fault of whomever gave the banks the loan. So where did all this money go at the end of the day? The people who loaned it to the banks in the first place. Who is looking to bankrupt everyone and their countries to get their hands on this money? The people who made bad investments, loans in the first place.

Who will end up paying for it. The people who by and large didn't borrow the bulk of these debts.

So my point is, I don't see why they can't wait for their money. They caused the problem in the first place.

Everything was going well according to Mr O'Donnell, until Lehman Brothers collapsed and eventually the Irish banks buckled.

Here's the dude complaining that Lehmann's sank everyone, which is Bertietalk.

You don't see why the bank can't wait for the money because all you have is a property speculator explaining why he is good for it, really. He made the decision to solidify all his loans in the one bank, which seems to me, at best a terrible decision. He didn't overstretch on credit, Lehmann's collapsed according to him. They struck an agreement, but that broke down. How did it break down? Dunno, this guy won't say. So on balance, it's probably because he couldn't repay the money.

I think he probably was given a good solid reason why the 9.3 million wasn't counted, but he didn't think it would make him look good for the article, so he didn't say it. I think that he overstretched, and got burned, and he became rich in a credit rich environment, which is now gone. I think if the banks genuinely thought he had a good plan, they'd go with it, but they don't.

I'm not asking that the guy live in penury for the rest of his life, but business deals don't work out sometimes. Sell what you have and pay your debts, don't get to sit in your mansion moving money around that you don't have and hoping that the property market un****s itself.

reprazant

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

And if we did it would be full with the people who are too poor to pay off the most basic of debts.

People like yourself, who take smug satisfaction in watching people's world crash around them make me sick.

BostonB

I think some of you are missing the point. Its not siding with the couple, or punishing them. It would just make more sense, if the bank got better value for money with these assets, as the slash and burn in 24 hrs hurts primarily the taxpayer.