IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.

FreudianSlippers

meglome wrote: »

These comments are really starting to piss me off. I have zero interest in Fine Gael as such but I will defend their actions if they should be defended. The anti-everything lot are so one-sided that a bit of balance goes a long way.

And some of us like a trial before the hanging.

+1

This is a non-story at the moment. Let's get some actual information before we start spouting off.

Boggles

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

+1
This is a non-story at the moment.

Jaysus, it's a lot of things but it is certainly not a non-story.

Baggy Trousers

Catherine Murphy was on the 'week in politics' last night. She comes across as a very honest and hardworking politician. She has been chasing this issue for years and frustrated at every turn but she kept at it. We need more like her.

FreudianSlippers

Boggles wrote: »

Jaysus, it's a lot of things but it is certainly not a non-story.

Seriously, what is there to talk about? I'm fed up with the current "news" method of dropping the start of a story and just speculating on it non-stop. By the time any real evidence arises, the story is already beaten to death by speculation.

golfball37

This has been a story to a lot of us since 2012. In fact my only opposition to water charges is based on a company owned by a man who was found to have profited from corrupt state practices, winning the contract to install water meters.
Why is a man who was found by an Independednt judge to have benfitted from corrupt state practices alowed win another State contract?
That is the real issue here and not a write down of a bust company by a bust bank.

delahuntv

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Catherine Murphy was on the 'week in politics' last night. She comes across as a very honest and hardworking politician. She has been chasing this issue for years and frustrated at every turn but she kept at it. We need more like her.

sorry, but catherine Murphy has ZERO business experience and is unlikely to keep her seat in next election - hence she needed the publicity.

She doesn;t seem to be able to answer back on any of the factual points put forward by Alan Dukes.

She certainly hasn't chased it "for years". I'll give my own speculation - a senior civil servant who has a bone to pick choose her to give very selective information to so that shee could add 2+2 and get to 20.


Think! - Some civil servants see it as their "right" to be involved in certain things and when it doesn't go their way they use ubnderhand tactics to "punish" others.

My guess is a simlar situation is involved in the SF/Mary Lou Ansbacher issue where the civil servant working on the case assumed they would get a promotion (despite his dreadfully slow work) and went via SF to wreak his revenge.

As someon who had a family member at a very senior level in civil service (well retired), the power struggles and egos in the higher echelons are quite unbelieveable and a lot of dirty tricks and leaks emanate from those who are scorned.

Boggles

delahuntv wrote: »

sorry, but catherine Murphy has ZERO business experience

TBF, half the cabinet, i.e the people running the country have ZERO business experience.

delahuntv wrote: »

and is unlikely to keep her seat in next election

Based on?

hatrickpatrick

meglome wrote: »

These comments are really starting to piss me off. I have zero interest in Fine Gael as such but I will defend their actions if they should be defended.

Personally when I think of Blueshirt bots it wouldn't be you I'd be thinking of. I've certainly never seen you defend an FG policy which you would have attacked were it an FF policy.

And some of us like a trial before the hanging.

The trouble with Ireland is that we rarely get a slap on the wrist, let alone a hanging, after the trial when it comes to powerful people.

hatrickpatrick

golfball37 wrote: »

Why is a man who was found by an Independednt judge to have benfitted from corrupt state practices alowed win another State contract?
That is the real issue here and not a write down of a bust company by a bust bank.

This. As I said earlier, if we must tolerate the existence of a political elite, it's certainly not too much to demand that one strike, IE one instance of being found to have engaged in bribery, corruption, or general shenanigans and you are permanently shunned from said elite.

It's a very basic and simple concept that people don't double standards.

Baggy Trousers

delahuntv wrote: »

sorry, but catherine Murphy has ZERO business experience and is unlikely to keep her seat in next election - hence she needed the publicity.

No need to apologise but (1) so what? and (2) who says?

davycc

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Catherine Murphy was on the 'week in politics' last night. She comes across as a very honest and hardworking politician. She has been chasing this issue for years and frustrated at every turn but she kept at it. We need more like her.

yea seen her on the show and agree 100% we badly need more of her integry

Muahahaha

delahuntv wrote: »

sorry, but catherine Murphy has ZERO business experience and is unlikely to keep her seat in next election - hence she needed the publicity.

.

You were spouting that line last week too and I asked you to provide evidence. Have you found it yet or are you just throwing mud on here and hoping some of it sticks?

Back to Siteserve- Broadsheet.ie have done an excellent timeline of the entire debacle stretching from 2007 onwards to the present day. Turns out several journalists spotted the cronyism at the time of the sale in 2012. Its a long read http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/27/timeline-to-a-killing/

A choice quote

April 15, 2012: It’s reported that Denis O’Brien owed Anglo Irish Bank €833.8million on foot of personal and corporate loans just after the lender was nationalised in 2009, making him its then sixth largest borrower. Between 2009 and 2012, he reduced his borrowings to under €500m. It’s reported his dealings with Anglo go back to when he founded 98FM and that his relationship with the bank continued as he bid for Ireland’s second mobile phone business.

Now what I want to know is why was Denis O'Brien, a supposedly successful and very profitable businessman with an multinational telecommunications company posting profit after profit given a write down of over €300m on what he owed to a taxpayer owned bank, all while Alan Dukes a former Fine Gael leader was Chairman of the Board. Why was the Irish taxpayer giving DOB €300m for free at a time when he is profitable and the nation broke?

Some journalists reactions at the time of the Siteserve sale:

April 8, 2012: The Inquisitor in the Sunday Business Post writes about the Siteserv sale to Millington, saying: “This [Siteserv] is a company whose shares were trading at 1c each on January 15 and at nearly 3c on February 10. That’s nearly a 300 per cent return for a quick purchase in less than a month. Last week, they were at more than 3c per share. Shareholders who stayed in the company as the stock disappeared down the toilet would have been delighted to sell out for 2c in early February when the stock was just 1c two weeks earlier. They had probably written off the investment anyway.

“The reason the shares were so low was because the company was seen as dead in the water for investors. It couldn’t pay off its debts and, surely, IBRC would simply pull the plug. But there is a valid business there beneath the debt — a business that other players in its sector might want to buy.”

April 8, 2012: Gavin Daly, in The Sunday Times, reports: “There are suspicions of cronyism, centred in part on relations among the parties around the Siteserv circle. O’Brien is friendly with Niall McFadden, whose Boundary Capital backed Siteserv in the good old days, and who is friends with Brian Harvey, its chief executive.”

April 8, 2012: Jody Corcoran, in the Sunday Independent, writes about Denis O’Brien and Phil Hogan, saying ‘In due course, Siteserv will, no doubt, tender for state contracts, such as, for example, the installation of water meters at households around the country — a contract that will be granted by the Department of the Environment.

As both men are no doubt aware, it simply would not do for them to have either formal or informal meetings, nor, for that matter, for them to bump into each other over a burnt rasher, lest anybody get the wrong idea. You cannot be too careful these days.‘

Some people on here would love this to be a non-story, which is pretty laughable IMO.

blackwhite

Muahahaha wrote: »

You were spouting that line last week too and I asked you to provide evidence. Have you found it yet or are you just throwing mud on here and hoping some of it sticks?

Back to Siteserve- Broadsheet.ie have done an excellent timeline of the entire debacle stretching from 2007 onwards to the present day. Turns out several journalists spotted the cronyism at the time of the sale in 2012. Its a long read http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/27/timeline-to-a-killing/

A choice quote



Now what I want to know is how Denis O'Brien, a supposedly successful and very profitable businessman with an internation telecommunications company posting profit after profit given a write down of over €300m on what he owed to a taxpayer owned bank, all while Alan Dukes a former Fine Gael leader was Chairman of the Board.

What you've quoted doesn't state that he was "given a write down", it states he reduced his borrowings.

Given the large profits generated by most of his companies, I'd say it's quite likely that those borrowings were reduced in the traditional manner (i.e. paying back the sums owed).

Boggles

Muahahaha wrote: »

Now what I want to know is why was Denis O'Brien, a supposedly successful and very profitable businessman with an multinational telecommunications company posting profit after profit given a write down of over €300m on what he owed to a taxpayer owned bank, all while Alan Dukes a former Fine Gael leader was Chairman of the Board. Why was the Irish taxpayer giving DOB €300m for free at a time when he is profitable and the nation broke?

I don't think it is suggesting he got a write down of 300m.

He reduced his borrowings which probably means, he restructured, paid them off, etc to bring them down to 500m.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally when I think of Blueshirt bots it wouldn't be you I'd be thinking of. I've certainly never seen you defend an FG policy which you would have attacked were it an FF policy.

I honestly can't think of anyone in here who supports FG through thick and thin. I've seen plenty support them on some issues but not others. However when it comes to SF (and the hard left) there are people in here who'd support them even if, frankly, good aul' Gerry took a dump in their faces. And I can guarantee you that anyone who supports any decision by the government will get called a shill (or the equivalent) within a page, it's really pathetic.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The trouble with Ireland is that we rarely get a slap on the wrist, let alone a hanging, after the trial when it comes to powerful people.

In Ireland it's often a choice of shyster A or shyster B but make no mistake we create this situation. I laugh some days when people are ripping FG to shreds for... well... everything then will believe any crap from the left. Honestly is it so hard to have the same standards for everyone.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This. As I said earlier, if we must tolerate the existence of a political elite, it's certainly not too much to demand that one strike, IE one instance of being found to have engaged in bribery, corruption, or general shenanigans and you are permanently shunned from said elite.

It's a very basic and simple concept that people don't double standards.

We create and sustain the political elite. We repeatedly elect cowboys and are surprised by the results, then sit around wondering who else's fault it was. Worse many will believe any ole shíte from those politicians who claim to fight for the common man. While they are actually worse liars than the other liars. I'm tired of people blaming others for what we do.

hatrickpatrick

meglome wrote: »

We create and sustain the political elite. We repeatedly elect cowboys and are surprised by the results, then sit around wondering who else's fault it was. Worse many will believe any ole shíte from those politicians who claim to fight for the common man. While they are actually worse liars than the other liars. I'm tired of people blaming others for what we do.

So do you agree, then, that the current government are in fact cowboys?

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So do you agree, then, that the current government are in fact cowboys?

I'd describe them as the lessor of e... cowboys. It would have been far better in the last election if FG got an overall majority but probably was the best we could have done at the last election.. Still probably the best we can hope for. But there is hope that a a party might come along and not just throw out the usual populist crap.

Boggles

meglome wrote: »

These comments are really starting to piss me off. I have zero interest in Fine Gael as such but I will defend their actions if they should be defended. The anti-everything lot are so one-sided that a bit of balance goes a long way.

And some of us like a trial before the hanging.

meglome wrote: »

I honestly can't think of anyone in here who supports FG through thick and thin. I've seen plenty support them on some issues but not others. However when it comes to SF (and the hard left) there are people in here who'd support them even if, frankly, good aul' Gerry took a dump in their faces. And I can guarantee you that anyone who supports any decision by the government will get called a shill (or the equivalent) within a page, it's really pathetic.



In Ireland it's often a choice of shyster A or shyster B but make no mistake we create this situation. I laugh some days when people are ripping FG to shreds for... well... everything then will believe any crap from the left. Honestly is it so hard to have the same standards for everyone.

meglome wrote: »

We create and sustain the political elite. We repeatedly elect cowboys and are surprised by the results, then sit around wondering who else's fault it was. Worse many will believe any ole shíte from those politicians who claim to fight for the common man. While they are actually worse liars than the other liars. I'm tired of people blaming others for what we do.

meglome wrote: »

I'd describe them as the lessor of e... cowboys. It would have been far better in the last election if FG got an overall majority but probably was the best we could have done at the last election.. Still probably the best we can hope for. But there is hope that a a party might come along and not just throw out the usual populist crap.

I have no idea what all this ranting and raving has got to do with the topic of the thread.

But it seems to me you can do something about it.

Join a party or run in the next election as an Independent.

meglome

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea what all this ranting and raving has got to do with the topic of the thread.

But it seems to me you can do something about it.

Join a party or run in the next election as an Independent.

A thread filled with the 'guberment dunnit' comments of all types. You see no connection?

Banjo String

Banjo String wrote: »

Secondly, didn't the CEO get a lump sum of €800,000 and stay on in his post

.

rrpc wrote: »

I don't know about the €800k, but the CEO of SiteServ came from Dell shortly after the sale .

In June/July 2013. http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/th-punt-harvey-off-to-pastures-new-29346094.html

http://m.independent.ie/business/irish/siteserv-appoints-corkery-as-new-chief-executive-29457958.html

More than a full year after the sale to OBrien.

My post stands. Harvey kept his position and pocketed €800k.

Nice work if you can get it.

Some lads are persistently trying to indulge in a bit of sweeping under rugs on this thread.

jcon1913

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Very strange that the shareholders also got a €5 million payout as part of the deal even though the company was rapidly going under. Also the same legal representative acted for both the seller and the purchasers. Is that even legal? Seems like a massive conflict of interest.

Heres a few conflicts of interest:

Auditors of Irish Nationwide Building Society ( INBS )- KPMG

Liquidators of the company INBS was merged into ( called Irish Bank Resolution Corporation or IBRC ) - KPMG ( even though you are not supposed to liquidate a company once audited by you.... )

Advisers to Siteserv in the sale of the company - KPMG

Adviser to IBRC in the sale of Siteserv - former Director at KPMG Walter Hobbs

Liquidator of Siteserv after the company is stripped of the trade- KPMG

Inquiry in to the whole sorry mess at the behest of the Irish GOvernment - KPMG

Really - this is such an unholy mess its unspeakable.

jcon1913

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Shifty indeed. He didn't strike me as a crook or anything, more like someone who's been blindsided and may not have been aware of all the facts when this was happening. Either way though his remarks will only further the crisis - on the shareholders, he effectively stated that they shouldn't have been paid, but that they had to be bribed to accept the deal.

This makes little sense to me - if the deal hadn't worked out, as he said himself, the company would have collapsed anyway and the shareholders would have got nothing. So what vested interest would they have had in blocking it? Taking the ship down with them or something?

I had the RTE player paused (was already recording two programs on TV) and apparently if you pause for too long the next program begins regardless of whether you've finished watching what you had paused, so I didn't get to see any of the reactions to his interview apart from the very beginning of Catherine Murphy's response in which she said she'd be even more concerned having just watched that interview. Did anyone see the rest of the show? What else did she say and did anyone else speak on it?

Walter Hobbs to be fair is a very experienced guy in buying and selling companies, and he probably got the best deal that was available. What rankles is that the shareholders, who should have been diluted out to zero, instead dug in their heels and asked for a few bob to sign off on the deal. €5million bob to be precise. In any other situation it is doubtful they would have a penny. It's usually law of the jungle i.e. if you have no power you get nothing.

EDIT another poster mentioned that there was a shareholders agreement that any sale of the company would have to be agreed - not sure what relevance it has but maybe it was enforceable.

jcon1913

seamus wrote: »

It's not uncommon for takeovers/buyouts to include a sweetener for the shareholders, the major question here is why the shareholders had any say at all given the company's debt burden, who approved such an enormous sweetener amount (considering that's €5m out of the public purse), and who were the beneficiaries of this?

If your business is bunched and the banks move in on you you get nothing, nada, so yes one would have to ask why the the share holders got any sweetener.

FalconGirl

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Catherine Murphy was on the 'week in politics' last night. She comes across as a very honest and hardworking politician. She has been chasing this issue for years and frustrated at every turn but she kept at it. We need more like her.

Very proud to have her representing me having given her my No 1 in 2011. She's a honest, hard working and decent politician who is thoroughly fulfilling the mandate that the people of North Kildare gave her. Not many can say that about their representatives unfortunately.

She is reaching into the darkest corners of Irish political and corporate life here and hopefully will continue to do so and ask the hard questions. I can imagine there are many who will try and keep her quiet the year before the election.

micosoft

jcon1913 wrote: »

If your business is bunched and the banks move in on you you get nothing, nada, so yes one would have to ask why the the share holders got any sweetener.

As Hobbs explained, time was against Siteserv and it's employees. If the Shareholders were going to be wiped out they had nothing to lose by threatening mutually assured destruction. So it came down to buying off the Shareholders for 5m or losing everything. IBRC took a very pragmatic decision to buy them off. That's capitalism and not a conspiracy. That said I doubt there were many Shareholders that didn't lose a lot of money on Siteserv. The Shareprice went from €90 to a couple of cent.



I also think this "share spike" is a red herring. It was a penny stock so talk about 278% is disingenuous. The shares went up a cent in value. Hundreds of thousands of shares trading is not unusual for these shares... and not a huge amount of money can create large fluctuations.

jcon1913

micosoft wrote: »

As Hobbs explained, time was against Siteserv and it's employees. If the Shareholders were going to be wiped out they had nothing to lose by threatening mutually assured destruction. So it came down to buying off the Shareholders for 5m or losing everything. IBRC took a very pragmatic decision to buy them off. That's capitalism and not a conspiracy. That said I doubt there were many Shareholders that didn't lose a lot of money on Siteserv. The Shareprice went from €90 to a couple of cent.



I also think this "share spike" is a red herring. It was a penny stock so talk about 278% is disingenuous. The shares went up a cent in value. Hundreds of thousands of shares trading is not unusual for these shares... and not a huge amount of money can create large fluctuations.

Not to labour the point, but if you are the bank you can appoint a receiver then the receiver overrules the shareholders until the loans the receiver is appointed to recover are paid back. So actually the shareholders probably had no power in this situation except that appointing a receiver might have damaged the company.

So mutually assured destruction is possibly the threat that they used, and in that context €5 million is probably cheap to get the deal completed.

Mind you they were cheeky b******s to look for anything, and were mighty lucky to get anything. Niall McFadden, Martin Cole ( early investors ) got feck all I assume?

You are right about fluctuations in a penny stock like this, the amounts involved are so small it would not have taken much money to move the stock about.

While we are on about coincidences, how many of these guys had Blackrock College connections? I know Martin Cole is from Longford originally, but McFadden and Brian Harvey ( CEO who got €800,000 ) certainly have Blackrock College connections.

Hmmmmm.

Banjo String

micosoft wrote: »

As Hobbs explained, time was against Siteserv and it's employees. If the Shareholders were going to be wiped out they had nothing to lose by threatening mutually assured destruction. So it came down to buying off the Shareholders for 5m or losing everything. IBRC took a very pragmatic decision to buy them off. That's capitalism and not a conspiracy. That said I doubt there were many Shareholders that didn't lose a lot of money on Siteserv. The Shareprice went from €90 to a couple of cent.



I also think this "share spike" is a red herring. It was a penny stock so talk about 278% is disingenuous. The shares went up a cent in value. Hundreds of thousands of shares trading is not unusual for these shares... and not a huge amount of money can create large fluctuations.

Thank God the share register being opened up today has cleared up everything.

http://www.thejournal.ie/siteserv-shareholders-2071377-Apr2015/

Essentially, an attempt to clear the water has poured about 17 tonnes of mud into it.

Not.

micosoft

meglome wrote: »

And some of us like a trial before the hanging.

Some of us prefer Kangaroo Courts apparently.

micosoft

jcon1913 wrote: »

Not to labour the point, but if you are the bank you can appoint a receiver then the receiver overrules the shareholders until the loans the receiver is appointed to recover are paid back. So actually the shareholders probably had no power in this situation except that appointing a receiver might have damaged the company.

So mutually assured destruction is possibly the threat that they used, and in that context €5 million is probably cheap to get the deal completed.

Mind you they were cheeky b******s to look for anything, and were mighty lucky to get anything. Niall McFadden, Martin Cole ( early investors ) got feck all I assume?

You are right about fluctuations in a penny stock like this, the amounts involved are so small it would not have taken much money to move the stock about.

While we are on about coincidences, how many of these guys had Blackrock College connections? I know Martin Cole is from Longford originally, but McFadden and Brian Harvey ( CEO who got €800,000 ) certainly have Blackrock College connections.

Hmmmmm.

Sure. I get all that. But this has to be seen in the context of the firesale that was IBRC who needed a clean sale. Court cases, delays etc would have scuppered the deal. It's definitely less then ideal and I'm sure in retrospect some things could have been done differently with the wind down of IBRC. In retrospect.

And I agree - the problem with an independent state the size of Ireland is that naturally it will come down to a small group of the usual faces. Not sure what can be done about that though..... an interesting separate thread....