Anglo Trial!

Peterdalkey

I assume there are many on here following the trial, especially as the fallout has been so profound for many of us actually in business.
I noted that in earlier proceedings that the Judge stated that this was not a "free legal aid" trial so the defence legal fees are being paid by someone! Sean FitzPatrick is a bankrupt, so we can safely assume his Official Assignee is not covering his costs. Anglo/IBRC have issued a statement saying they are not covering the bills but they had a huge Directors and Officers legal indemnity insurance policy in place, are they covering the defence costs? Have trawled extensively, but can find no definitive answer.

Voltex

Don't really have much to contribute regarding your question on who's paying the lawyers...but I did have a look back into Anglo's FR for 2008 and with the benefit of hindsight it is truly frightening what was lurking within it.
I'm wondering to myself would there have been more insight into the true state of financial position within the bank had they been subject to an Irish equivalent of Sarbanes Oxley?

Gloomtastic!

Several bits I'm still trying to get my head around:

1. Why does Matt Moran have legal indemnity? Apart from his parents having a pub opposite Enda Kenny's Constuency Office in Castlebar, I can't wait to see what he's bringing to the party to get away scott-free!

2. It appears the regulator was completely aware of all processes as they were taking place, yet only the bankers have been convicted.

3. Why hasn't David Drumm been charged (even in his absense)?

Peterdalkey

1. At a guess, he fessed up first, at level 3 in pecking order and had little power...cheap buy!

2. You silly boy.. he was but a humble civil servant, and with little proper education!

3. They can only extradite him from the States on a criminal charge, so if they can prove criminal offences against those above and below him, they have rock solid gold to give him a solo performance in Dublin Crim court!! Slowly slowly, catchee monkey!!

DubTony

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

3. Why hasn't David Drumm been charged (even in his absense)?

Peterdalkey wrote: »

3. They can only extradite him from the States on a criminal charge, so if they can prove criminal offences against those above and below him, they have rock solid gold to give him a solo performance in Dublin Crim court!! Slowly slowly, catchee monkey!!

Maybe we should run a pool on this. If the other three are convicted how long will it be before extradition proceedings begin?

cml387

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

2. It appears the regulator was completely aware of all processes as they were taking place, yet only the bankers have been convicted.

Not quite. Witnesses have said that the regulator approved.
We shall no doubt hear the regulators view.

Peterdalkey

Nobody has been convicted yet!!

Ireland Ha! , fat chance of the regulator being held in any meaningful way accountable for gross dereliction of duty in his trusted role, he will get off scot free!

Gloomtastic!

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Nobody has been convicted yet!!

Ireland Ha! , fat chance of the regulator being held in any meaningful way accountable for gross dereliction of duty in his trusted role, he will get off scot free!

Sorry that was my typo, no one has been convicted, yet. I should have read charged.

Peterdalkey

Still want to know who is paying the legals here!!

Gloomtastic!

Here's another one for you Peter.......

Are the Senior Counsels for the Prosecution and Sean Fitzpatrick's Defense related?

Sean's SC - Michael O'Higgins
http://www.lawlibrary.ie/members/barrister.asp?barID=586
Prosecution SC - Paul O'Higgins
http://www.lawlibrary.ie/barristers/Mr_Paul_OHiggins_SC/181/

:eek:

Peterdalkey

Pity, Gloomster, that you do not pull the answer to my question out of one of your magic hats!! Ha HA!

pedroeibar1

cml387 wrote: »

We shall no doubt hear the regulators view.

"Fair play to you, Willie!"

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Still want to know who is paying the legals here!!

Seanie has not been dumped by all his friends. Many owe him favours, and are willing to help out in his moment of need.

It's bordering on the Forum's charter so I don't want to say too much, but IMO the real interest is Quinn, and what will happen if the decision goes against the State.

Kermit.de.frog

The judge has just directed the jury to deliver majority 10/2 verdict because they can not reach unanimous decision. Near the end now.

IrishLad2012

Sean Fitzpatrick has been found not guilty on all charges. Absolutely disgusted with that news. Joke of a country.

terryhobdell

Who are Seanies two "special friends?"

digzy

IrishLad2012 wrote: »

Sean Fitzpatrick has been found not guilty on all charges. Absolutely disgusted with that news. Joke of a country.

What are you on about, the man was tried and found not guilty of permitting illegal lending to the maple 10. The case wasn't whether he was a reckless boll0x
Whose actions contributed to the economic collapse. Get a grip.

There's a narrative about that Sean fitz and fingers caused the country to collapse. It suits the other pigs with their snouts in the trough. Examples of the pigs? The regulator, politicians such as Cowan and Aherne, the ecb for permitting reckless lending from Europe to our banks, the developers who built dirt etc...
I won't go on and bore the ass of ya but while the 2 bucks mentioned were a disgrace why haven't they been found guilty of anything. I don't hear much about the chief execs in the other banks who are equally heinous.

digzy

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Still want to know who is paying the legals here!!

Look in the mirror. As always in these spats the winner is always the legal teams
Some country😒

digzy

The best news of the lot was in rel to Sean Quinn. If they were found guilty regarding his Cfds the state would be open to him taking a case over his bankruptcy and the attempts of ibrc to gain control of his foreign properties.

Don't like the guys but in a twisted way it's a good day for the state

terryhobdell

As I see it it was difficult to link Seanie to any action involved in the Maple ten loans. Why the State tried to convict when it was going to be so difficult to prove is a question we will no doubt never get an answer too. However is he not also facing charges with respect to his moving of his loans out of Anglo to Nationwide (Which Fingers the most hands on lender in history didn't know about!!!!:D) just before each audit date? Or has someone lost that file?

pedroeibar1

digzy wrote: »

The best news of the lot was in rel to Sean Quinn. If they were found guilty regarding his Cfds the state would be open to him taking a case over his bankruptcy and the attempts of ibrc to gain control of his foreign properties.

Don't like the guys but in a twisted way it's a good day for the state

I agree that it was a good finding. Not an easy case for any jury, but IMO they got it right. I wonder about your comment though on the evasive and uncooperative crook Quinn – surely if Anglo was found guilty of illegal lending (to Quinn for the CFDs) the act of illegal lending would have precluded him from taking any action as he was party to what would have amounted to an illegal contract? It also would have precluded IBRC from going after Quinn? In pari delicto and all that.....

I include all politicos in the mess, we have an Opposition for a reason and Enda and co. carry their share of the blame.

Bed & breakfasting of the Fingers / Seanie money will have to come next – that gobdaw Neary should get hammered in that case if the rumours of a certain taped conversation are correct!

The Institute of Chartered Accountants should hang its head in shame for taking so long to do anything about a disciplinary hearing on any of its numerous errant members. As for the ODCE, emmmmm do we have one? Fiduciary duty my ar$e!!

skelligs

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Still want to know who is paying the legals here!!

Lets give an example.

If I purchased hundred's of thousands of packaging from you over a 20 year period, paid all my bills and then went bust.

I then needed a little dig out -

Would you A, Tell me thanks for all the business over the past 20 years, now feck off, or B, no problem Mr Skelligs, we'll look after you as a thank-you for the past 20 years.


Anglo put a lot of money through the legal system with the amount of deals it did over the years - Sean Fitz was anglo until 2006, the legal fraternity owed him one. He called the favour in.

Anglo were also the favoured lender to the legal eagles and many did very very well from their loans and got out before the crash. I doubt if Sean Fotz or any of the anglo guys will have any legal bills ever.

Gloomtastic!

According to a friend near the top of the legal chain, they were covered by directors' liability insurance.

Peterdalkey

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

According to a friend near the top of the legal chain, they were covered by directors' liability insurance.

I always suspected that to be the most likely scenario.

Gloomtastic!

The plot thickens once again! The Indo is claiming his €1m legal fees were not covered by insurance but paid privately. Maybe Fingleton helped him out again......

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/national-news/insurers-refused-to-cover-fitzpatrick-costs-30200049.html

skelligs

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

The plot thickens once again! The Indo is claiming his €1m legal fees were not covered by insurance but paid privately. Maybe Fingleton helped him out again......

you believe the Indo?

Naw. What they write is utter BS and conjecture especially the indo.

Firstly, only if you charge maximum rate allowable for all aspects of the case could you get to €1m. And mr fitz has plenty of legal friends who will give a digout / free services.



For various reasons, I've had three high court commercial cases including one that lasted 3 days that we ended up on the losing side. The full cost was given at just over €85k and the actual cost came to under €35k. A short one that was won, came in at over 15k on our side and our side eventually charged just over 5k even though the taxing master agreed with the 15k assessment.

Gloomtastic!

Mentioned in the Sunday Times as well. The Times also suggests Denis O'Brien may be his benefactor but everyone has 'no comment' to make when asked. Naturally!

digzy

Would there not be a revenue issue with a 'friend' covering his legal fees?
Is it not seen as a gift? There fore tax must be paid on it I'd assume?

Peterdalkey

I have not seen any authoritative report that there was no Directors and Officers indemnity insurance in place at Anglo. It would be extremely unusual for ant PLC not to have such cover in place and at the time, cost would not have been an issue as the shareholders fund the cost!!
All SF did was to thank two special friends along with his family for their support, he never mentioned that it was in the form of funding for his legal costs.

Conjecture makes for much sexier headlines!

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

I have not seen any authoritative report that there was no Directors and Officers indemnity insurance in place at Anglo. It would be extremely unusual for any PLC not to have such cover in place

Agreed, PD, but look at the facts. SF was charged with acting illegally; D & O insurance does not cover ‘misconduct’ which usually would include illegal acts. My guess is that the insurer declined to pay, SF did not want the potluck result of a FLA team, so a friend stepped into the breach. Now that SF is clear & clean, I'd guess that he will take an action against the insurers if they do not pay up.(I would!).

Peterdalkey

Would disagree on D&O cover for misconduct!! then add in the fact that they had legal counsel to confirm actions were legal. Insurance co is out on a very insecure limb in my opinion!

Peterdalkey

D&O insurance info http://www.agcs.allianz.com/insights/white-papers-and-case-studies/introduction-to-do-insurance/

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

D&O insurance info http://www.agcs.allianz.com/insights/white-papers-and-case-studies/introduction-to-do-insurance/
Would disagree on D&O cover for misconduct!! then add in the fact that they had legal counsel to confirm actions were legal. Insurance co is out on a very insecure limb in my opinion!

Thanks for the link. From page 6 of the Allianz brochure:
A D&O policy does not cover fraudulent, criminal or
intentional non-compliant acts.* Nevertheless, innocent
directors remain fully covered if they are co-defendants, even if
the acts of their colleagues were intentional or fraudulent.
*my underlining
So my comments would appear to be correct.

Re your comment on legal advice, yes, it was obtained, but only after the event (Maple 10 loans) , the trial judge made a comment to that effect.

Peterdalkey

my recollection of the evidence was that tacit approval ( no objection) from the regulator and legal advice had been obtained prior to the Maple 10 signing up!!
If the directors believed that they were acting legally, having taken specific legal advice, in civil law the insurance company would have no right to repudiation, in my view! Clearly we are not privy to the level and scope of cover in place, but it would be very safe to assume there was significant cover.

Now the warehousing of loans during audit periods is another kettle of fish altogether!!

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

my recollection of the evidence was that tacit approval ( no objection) from the regulator and legal advice had been obtained prior to the Maple 10 signing up!!
If the directors believed that they were acting legally, having taken specific legal advice, in civil law the insurance company would have no right to repudiation, in my view! Clearly we are not privy to the level and scope of cover in place, but it would be very safe to assume there was significant cover.

Just because the Regulator’s office was aware of what was going on does not make it legal, as the State was happy to issue proceedings against SF and the others for illegality. One of the reasons the other 2 went down was because their defence failed to prove that there was prior legal advice –the trial judge said that the small legal bill (of <5k euro from memory) for events immediately prior to the loan could not be attributed to legal advice on such a complex matter. I concur with m’lud, MOPs never did ‘cheap’ and 5k would get you nowhere with any of the big firms!
However, we are in the realms of speculation on the D&O cover. No doubt there was significant cover in place, but one never knows how good a policy is until it is tested! Another possibility is that there was a falling out over the insurers proposed legal team (the insurers nominate the legal team ‘cos they foot the bill). If SF was not happy with the insurer’s team and vice-a-versa, SF would be on his own, hence the dig-out.

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Now the warehousing of loans during audit periods is another kettle of fish altogether!!

When the warehousing case comes on Neary will get a tough time, deservedly, as it seems to be common knowledge that he was up to his neck in that episode. It will be interesting to see if McAteer will get the knife in as pay-back. Neary has a history of ‘forgetting’ - ‘cannot remember’ - ‘no recollection,’ etc., so I expect he will be on the receiving end of some tough questions and remarks. If the ODCE had any cojones they would institute proceedings against Neary (and the directors of ALL the banks in the 2004-2007 period) as being “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company”. It would be one for the books to see a former regulator being restricted!

Peterdalkey

I must again disagree! The judge actually held that the legal advice was inadmissible on the basis that it was a variance with the law, incorrect. ignorance etc is no defence..... nothing to do with the fees charged!

Neary was never governed by company law, so the ODCE can whistle Dixie in his case. Personal responsibility or accountability has been airbrushed out of existence when it comes to elected and permanent government officials . PPARS, decentralisation, eVoting, Poolbeg Incinerator etc etc etc are just a few examples. I would love to see Neary nailed for his dereliction of fiduciary duty to the citizenry of Ireland but when you fcuk up as a politician or civil/public servant, the only sanction is to be given a nice big lump sum, golden pension and if you keep your trap shut, down the road we will give you a new job looking after water meters or the like. You can of course keep your lump sum and pension and if you do a "good job" we will give you anudder wun!! and de chance of a special bonus!!

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

I must again disagree! The judge actually held that the legal advice was inadmissible on the basis that it was a variance with the law, incorrect. ignorance etc is no defence..... nothing to do with the fees charged!

Neary was never governed by company law, so the ODCE can whistle Dixie in his case.

I still disagree and not just because I like dissension!

We are talking hypothetical.
Nothing of note will happen in Ireland because we are ruled by a bunch of teachers who have absolutely no experience of business whatsoever...... aided and abetted by a mediocre, pedestrian press corps (business commentators are with a few exceptions even worse) that is happy to unquestioningly trot out the party line of guff. If they had any understanding of what was happening one of the gobdaws would have jumped on the bandwagon of how ‘effective’ Ireland and ‘probity’ were and underlined the fact that in the UK Barclays Bank did the very same thing with certain Middle Eastern people to buoy up its own share price. (Bruxelles and HMG have remained very quiet on that!)Nor is it a crime in the US, which is why Drummer is sitting comfortably on his padded ar$e and not facing extradition.

So, if we had a just world, (dream on!) look at it this way ...... Neary (where does it say he is exempt from Company Law?) will be dragged into the case on warehousing the cash to doctor-up Anglo’s balance sheet. Assuming that his memory does not totally fail him, (and even if it does) his actions, or lack of them, will be deemed by the judge to be inappropriate. I mean fair play to you Neary, it obviously has to be inappropriate! After that, two things can happen: (a) The ODCE has the right to apply to the High Court for the examination of persons believed to be in possession of information relating to the affairs of a failed company (s.245 Companies Act 1963, as amended by s.44 Company Law Enforcement Act 2001) so if he had cojones (as mentioned in my earlier post) the ODCE would get off his ass and earn his salt. If Neary does not give satisfactory answers (and ‘forgetting’ is not a defence) there is an application to have him restricted.
Additionally
(b) the findings/report of the so-called ‘Banking Enquiry’ will no doubt be critical of Neary and as that report is one of inspectors appointed by the Minister, there are sufficient grounds for the ODCE to apply for a restriction order on the basis that Neary’s conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. (Companies Act 1990 S.160(2) e) the court may, of its own motion, or as a result of the application, make a disqualification order against such a person for such period as it sees fit.)

Would it get us our money back? NO.
Would it kick some of the greedy coterie in a delicate place? YES
Would it affect Neary and his pension? NO
Would it make me and 1,000's of others feel happy? YES.
Does the ODCE have any courage? NO
(Does giving yourself a $1millon watch amount to malfeasance or justify an ODCE action? Has that happened? )

Would we ever see any of this ever happen? Will we f###!

terryhobdell

We would all like to see the whole lot of incompetent self serving bastards answer for their actions but I doubt our legal system is fit for purpose but fingers Drumm, Quinn and Fitzpatrick are something the system should cope with.

aido79

Maybe a little off topic here but did these loans actually achieve anything or would the result have been the same without them?

Gloomtastic!

aido79 wrote: »

Maybe a little off topic here but did these loans actually achieve anything or would the result have been the same without them?

Share price would have tanked regardless. However, if Sean Quinn hadn't of gambled on CFD's in Anglo, then Anglo would not have been included in the bank guarantee.

I believe the biggest thing this whole debacle achieved was to prove one of the laws of business - no matter if you are one of the richest men in Europe - 'You're only ever two mistakes from going under!'

terryhobdell

Slowly the wheel turns it looks initially like Drumm is in deep **** in States and will end up in trailer park and then be extradited. Fitzpatricks busy team of lawyers funded by the tooth fairies have got a delay in his hiding loans trial but it's not too long!! This is the one they should have started with straighttforward did you mislead? Answer Yes. As the Sage of Dalkey has said slowly slowly catchee monkey.

pedroeibar1

I'm not going to comment on the current case but it is worthwhile to give this bit of history a bump.

Gloomtastic!

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on the current case but it is worthwhile to give this bit of history a bump.

Four years later, I’ve no interest in the Drumm case. The guy, along with a multitude of others, is/was guilty as sin but Ireland has been proven to be the land of zero-accountability so I’m not going to waste any more energy hoping for a different outcome.

pedroeibar1

It is now four and a half years since my comment "Fair play to you, Willie!" here

That comment is now firmly in the public domain (see Sarah-Jane Murphy’s article, Page 8, today’s Sunday Times) but the poor quality of mainstream Irish journalism largely has missed both it and the complicit 'green jersey' role of the Regulator. Drumm deservedly is in jail, but the culprits (with no memory!) in the regulator's office have not only got off scot free, but also with full pensions. Let’s now wait and see what the professional bodies do to their less than watchful audit partners and seniors!