New Emergency legislation to protect vulture funds

kathryn1985

Hi,

Didn't know this happened until i seen a comment at the end of one of the articles on the journal.ie and wasn't really relevant to the article either.

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1288908857293635586?s=20

Media coverage appears to be non non existent while the matter of the Shelbourne statues is everywhere.

christy c

kathryn1985 wrote: »

Hi,

Didn't know this happened until i seen a comment at the end of one of the articles on the journal.ie and wasn't really relevant to the article either.

https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1288908857293635586?s=20

Media coverage appears to be non non existent while the matter of the Shelbourne statues is everywhere.

What's it about? Played a few seconds of the video but it was just that idiot Pearse Doherty doing his usual angry man routine.

Fritzbox

kathryn1985 wrote: »

Hi,

Didn't know this happened until i seen a comment at the end of one of the articles on the journal.ie and wasn't really relevant to the article either.

What's it about? Played a few seconds of the video but it was just that idiot Pearse Doherty doing his usual angry man routine.

well precisely, what happened? I can't find any information online.

Eric Cartman

What is the legislation ?

maestroamado

Where was he for the last 3 months, if SF were any good they would have made an effort to be in Government.
I read during the week that a German company paid €150million peoperty in Dublin during the week almost €500,000 a unit.
The way things are going in Dublin only a select few will own property.
This has being going on for about 5 years and Government support, it was discussed here before so obviously this is what we want...

GhostyMcGhost

Anyone got any more info on the respective legislation? Video gives nothing away ... curious but would like to read for myself

Varik

Looking through the debates it's the bill shown in the video.

Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020

Not sure but looking through it, it seems that if your bank brought you to court then the contract you both signed is admissible but if a vulture fund bought the debt and then took you to court that same origional contract is hearsay as it's from a third party.

Again not sure, but if that's it then the amendment is how it should be.

maestroamado

Varik wrote: »

Looking through the debates it's the bill shown in the video.

Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2020

Not sure but looking through it, it seems that if your bank brought you to court then the contract you both signed is admissible but if a vulture fund bought the debt and then took you to court that same origional contract is hearsay as it's from a third party.

Again not sure, but if that's it then the amendment is how it should be.

Just to clarify, does that mean the vu;ture fund will be honoring the original contract...

_Kaiser_

maestroamado wrote: »

Just to clarify, does that mean the vulture fund will be honoring the original contract...

Not per my read of the interpretation above.

If the original contract (between buyer and bank) is inadmissible, then only the debt/liability to the vulture fund would be considered

maestroamado

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Not per my read of the interpretation above.

If the original contract (between buyer and bank) is inadmissible, then only the debt/liability to the vulture fund would be considered

[PHP][/PHP]


Can i ask where you seen this in print?


I am not a big fan of SF and more especially since they disappeared when Government being formed which for me has completely discredited their party.
I do understand the anger in the clip but i wonder did he know in advance, i would have thought these things flagged in advance.
If the Government we voted for are creating emergency legislation to favour vulture funds over the voters it worrying trend.

Varik

maestroamado wrote: »

Just to clarify, does that mean the vu;ture fund will be honoring the original contract...

They have to in any case with or without this law, the vulture fund is still bound to the original contract after buying the debt.

But if they failed to adhere to it then you brought them to court that contract is admissible, but if they brought you to court it's inadmissible as they weren't a first party to it and you were.

James Brown

It is difficult to find.
Found this on it:

https://twitter.com/davidhall75/status/1289335714828689411?s=09

The other point is in how they squeezed it in as emergency and Covid related, just before the holidays.
Stay classy FF/FG.

Eric Cartman

Bowie wrote: »

It is difficult to find.
Found this on it:

https://twitter.com/davidhall75/status/1289335714828689411?s=09

The other point is in how they squeezed it in as emergency and Covid related, just before the holidays.
Stay classy FF/FG.

tbh, that law is probably the only thing that is going to stop an entire banking collapse after loan books turn upside down and it turns out that all those mortgages were effectively unsecured. This allows landlords to just hand the keys back to the bank and say 'here my tenant hasn't paid in 9 months, I'm out" and the debt buyer (or vulture funds as they're incorrectly known) has a chance of getting repossession.

Assetbacked

This makes it fairer for the fund to turf out non-paying mortgage holders. Those not paying their mortgage are exasperating the housing crisis and contributing to higher mortgage rates for others so fcuk them.

Donald Trump

Bowie wrote: »

It is difficult to find.
Found this on it:

https://twitter.com/davidhall75/status/1289335714828689411?s=09

The other point is in how they squeezed it in as emergency and Covid related, just before the holidays.
Stay classy FF/FG.

Things have repercussions.


If people campaign to stop or delay banks from recouping money on bad debts, by preventing them from enforcing a lien that was openly given to them on a property in return for a wad of cash, then they are going to have to have to sell off that debt to some other entity that can actually manage it.


Why do people vote for the likes of your man Doherty? Wasn't he shown to be a chancer years ago by claiming he had some qualification that he didn't? Or do I misremember that? I think he started some degree in DIT but never finished it and was claiming it as a qualification. If someone is going to lie to your face about something so basic and irrelevant, why would you trust them on anything else

Varik

hearsay evidence in this case being the origional contract with the bank, it was hearsay as the vulture fund wasn't party to it but as the debtor was it wouldn't have been for them.

sydthebeat

Varik wrote: »

hearsay evidence in this case being the origional contract with the bank, it was hearsay as the vulture fund wasn't party to it but as the debtor was it wouldn't have been for them.

Surely evidence of the actual contract wouldn't be hearsay?

Varik

sydthebeat wrote: »

Surely evidence of the actual contract wouldn't be hearsay?

The vulture fund is a step removed from origional so the evidence isn't first hand making it hearsay.

It's all in the Dáil debate, and on a few legal blogs. Not seen it clarified in any MSN, they just mention de vulture funds and deir hearsay.

Edit: just to add, in that same court case the debtor could provide the original contract and it wouldn't be hearsay.