Developers to Sue over being allowed to borrow.

listermint · 22-02-2011 02:37PM #1

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/developers-body-looks-to-sue-banks-and-policymakers-over-collapse-2550050.html

IRISH bank bosses, regulators and policymakers are set to be sued for their role in allowing individuals and business to build up millions of property debts they can't repay.

The Irish Property Council -- which represents about 1,000 small-scale property developers, investors and builders -- is preparing to bring a landmark tests case on who should be liable for property debts.

The plan was announced at a meeting of 200 IPC members in Dublin last week, and ads in national newspapers will soon solicit applications from would-be plaintiffs.

"We already have five or six cases we know of that could work -- people who are in dire straights because of the amount they were allowed to borrow," said IPC director Seamas Savage. "We're hoping the ads will prompt more people to come forward."

The IPC has already retained Dublin legal firm Ferry Solicitors to run the case and is trying to raise €250,000 from members to fund the legal costs.

Last week's meeting was told the legal advisors had formed the view that there was a "case to answer" in relation to sharing the responsibility for the property collapse.

The IPC case will argue that "reckless" lending by banks and a "lack or regulation and incompetence" by the state contributed to the current plight of those who borrowed money to fund property ventures.

Mr Savage said that a show of hands revealed that only one of the 200 or so IPC members in attendance was against the case going forward, with the remainder in favour of proceeding.

Are these guys actually for real!! They are sueing for stretched business plans at best and over borrowing.

Ridiculous

flutered · 22-02-2011 02:47PM

where there is law there is money and lawyers.

Permabear · 22-02-2011 02:52PM

This post has been deleted.

listermint · 22-02-2011 02:53PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In principle I dont agree with that either.

Permabear · 22-02-2011 02:57PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 22-02-2011 02:58PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is a homeowner campaign for a peoples Nama?
When that start got a link?

dan_d · 22-02-2011 02:58PM

True Permabear, I feel tempted to link to this article in the ongoing thread about mortgage arrears.
I agree there was reckless lending by banks - actually, reckless behaviour in general.But I don't agree of the idea of suing....it's just another indication of property-driven greed in my eyes.

jimmycrackcorm · 22-02-2011 05:09PM

Same developers would have been completely quiet when they were making large profits on property and land deals.

jimmycrackcorm · 22-02-2011 05:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm a fan of TV legal drama shows. I'd love to watch this played out in court.

lawer: So Mr. Murphy, how long were you happy paying your expensive mortgage?

Murphy: Well, m'lud - it was completely fine until I discovered that the builders were selling other houses in the estate for 100k less.

RichardAnd · 22-02-2011 05:52PM

Sounds like the guy who sued McDonalds for being obese

.

danbohan · 22-02-2011 05:59PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Same developers would have been completely quiet when they were making large profits on property and land deals.

, same as the people bleating for mortgage bailouts who queued overnight to pay 500k + for matchboxes would be quiet ,if those matchboxes were now worth 750k instead 200k , whats good for the goose is good for the gander !

ressem · 22-02-2011 06:17PM

In the UK, the financial services regulator has just fined Deutsche Bank for 'irresponsible mortgages' to people with poor credit ratings, and will have to pay a small amount to each.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12536174

So it isn't just in Ireland.

In two minds about this case in the OP. The case might reveal what failed methodology they used to evaluating risk, and what they've done to fix this so far.

dabestman1 · 22-02-2011 06:27PM

sounds like a guy having a bad day at the bookies, then suing for his losses.

SkepticOne · 22-02-2011 06:30PM

danbohan wrote: »

, same as the people bleating for mortgage bailouts who queued overnight to pay 500k + for matchboxes would be quiet ,if those matchboxes were now worth 750k instead 200k , whats good for the goose is good for the gander !

These small time investors are likely to be represented in this particular court action.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2011 06:40PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Isn't the whole "irresponsible foreign banks lent us billions" story also based on the same principle?

amused,
Scofflaw

Jaysoose · 22-02-2011 06:45PM

danbohan wrote: »

, same as the people bleating for mortgage bailouts who queued overnight to pay 500k + for matchboxes would be quiet ,if those matchboxes were now worth 750k instead 200k , whats good for the goose is good for the gander !

Who paid 500k+ for a matchbox?

you boys are seriously boring by the way..hijacking another thread to bleat on about people in negative equity when its clearly about developers..there's a dozen threads on this subject already and your all saying the same boring holier than thou sh1t in those aswell.

Well played.

Permabear · 22-02-2011 06:48PM

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 22-02-2011 06:50PM

Considering these banks have managed to bankrupt a few countries and may yet bring down the Euro it is safe to say they acted irresponsibly and recklessly.
No sympathy for the developers though.

danbohan · 22-02-2011 06:52PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

Who paid 500k+ for a matchbox?

you boys are seriously boring by the way..hijacking another thread to bleat on about people in negative equity when its clearly about developers..there's a dozen threads on this subject already and your all saying the same boring holier than thou sh1t in those aswell.

Well played.

of course its about developers looking for a handout from somebody for something that THEY are responsible for , its bit mad . same as people in negative equity looking for somebody ie taxpayer to bail them out for their mistake , also a bit mad , and you cant see the link between the two ?

fred252 · 22-02-2011 07:01PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Isn't the whole "irresponsible foreign banks lent us billions" story also based on the same principle?

amused,
Scofflaw

is it not fair to say the lending was irresponsible in both cases?

PyeContinental · 22-02-2011 07:21PM

Jaysoose wrote: »

Who paid 500k+ for a matchbox?

you boys are seriously boring by the way..hijacking another thread to bleat on about people in negative equity when its clearly about developers..there's a dozen threads on this subject already and your all saying the same boring holier than thou sh1t in those aswell.

Well played.

There's an obvious parallel between the two scenarios.

I say that the big banks and bigger investors lent money recklessly to the smaller banks and smaller investors who in turn lent recklessly to the general population and people who thought they were bigger investors than they really were.

They all deserve to live with the consequences of their actions. No bailouts or handouts for anyone.

Let the banks foreclose on people who can't or won't make their mortgage repayments. Let the banks put them on the market and see what they get for them.

If the bigger investors want to try suing the bigger banks for being reckless enough to lend them money, go ahead as long as the awards aren't ultimately paid out with tax payers' money. Same if members of the general public want to try suing whoever gave them a mortgage for being reckless enough to do so, as long as I don't end up having to pay for other people's foolishness.

Dempo1 · 22-02-2011 07:32PM

Read about this extraordinary nonsense coming out of the Irish Property which are the small speculators as opposed to the CIF (Appropriately similar to a well known toilet cleaning product) who representcouncil. After copious amounts of vomit, all that remained was a chuckle at such nonsense, I have some sympathy (very, very little) for the people this organization represents the developers who left thousands of sub contractors high and dry. Speculation is at the heart of the crisis some people now find themselves in, they gambled and lost, tough titty and the notion they want to now sue because they did not get it all their way is absurd.

As an aside, the continuing presence of the complete ****er Simon Kelly on the airways is infuriating. Did anyone see this gob ****e on Panorama last night. This guy has some brass neck and they interviewed him in of all places, the shelbourne hotel. Its outrageous this git continues to be given air time.:mad:

Jaysoose · 22-02-2011 08:10PM

danbohan wrote: »

of course its about developers looking for a handout from somebody for something that THEY are responsible for , its bit mad . same as people in negative equity looking for somebody ie taxpayer to bail them out for their mistake , also a bit mad , and you cant see the link between the two ?

NOt doubting the fact that there is a link but there is also a big difference and loads of threads about negative equity to post in.

Its like every thread that talks about the public service descending into the same arguments now every thread about anything property related gets hijacked with the same old rhetoric and sweeping statements.

PyeContinental · 22-02-2011 08:24PM

The only difference is the amount of money. The principle (not principal) is the same. Let everyone who has made their bed now lie in it. Otherwise, we have the "Moral Hazard" or whatever economists want to call it so as to make what they're saying sound all "sciency". :rolleyes:

Sleepy · 22-02-2011 08:27PM

I can't give much in the way of detail due to non-disclosure agreements but I've seen a similar case in business lending, which resulted in the debt being written off by the bank rather than facing up to it in court...

I don't know if it was due to a fear of losing or simply not wanting to be seen to take the individual in question to court.

sollar · 22-02-2011 08:53PM

If this is successful then ordinary people lent far more than they could afford will be able to sue also..... should be very interesting.

Liam Byrne · 22-02-2011 09:20PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The developers already have their NAMA, so that's not a direct comparison.

Also, the only reason that I see that people want a break re their borrowings is because FF skewed the natural justice; not only are developers getting their NAMA, but the money is being robbed from all of us.

So THAT is what has caused calls for a "people's NAMA"; redressing an issue and imbalance which FF created.

Personally, NO-ONE should be bailed out by anyone else. You took out a loan, you made your own call. Live with it.

But if some con-men gamblers get money from me, then you can be damn sure I'll do my best to ensure that I get some of that back, or else just emigrate so that FF can't rob me to pay them.

Scofflaw · 22-02-2011 09:54PM

fred252 wrote: »

is it not fair to say the lending was irresponsible in both cases?

I don't really consider "irresponsible lending" to be a meaningful idea except to the lender, with the one exception of lending to someone recognisably mentally deficient. I don't really see how one can consider oneself an adult before the law and capable of being "irresponsibly lent to" - one can borrow irresponsibly, certainly, but the responsibility there is surely that of the borrower. You won't get your money back from a bookie if you gamble the kids' food money, because it's not the bookie's job to ensure you're gambling responsibly. Nor will you get your money back from a bookshop by claiming that the bookshop sold you a book irresponsibly when you were down to your last few euro. Same thing when it comes to renting money.

Where I would certainly have sympathy is where the borrower is badly advised - particularly where the borrower is badly advised by the lender - because in seeking advice the borrower acts responsibly, and in giving bad advice the advisor acts irresponsibly. So to the extent that the banks as lenders also offered the borrowers advice as to the amounts the borrower could safely afford to borrow, I'd have no problem ascribing recklessness to the banks.

I would also have sympathy with the idea of suing the regulator, because the regulator has a public duty to ensure good practice in the banks. I don't have a problem with the idea of the regulator being sued for allowing "reckless lending practices", but would consider that the term there does not imply any responsibility in respect of individual loans, but rather in respect of the effects of a bank collapse or bailout on the taxpayer and general public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 22-02-2011 10:00PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The developers already have their NAMA, so that's not a direct comparison.

Also, the only reason that I see that people want a break re their borrowings is because FF skewed the natural justice; not only are developers getting their NAMA, but the money is being robbed from all of us.

So THAT is what has caused calls for a "people's NAMA"; redressing an issue and imbalance which FF created.

Personally, NO-ONE should be bailed out by anyone else. You took out a loan, you made your own call. Live with it.

But if some con-men gamblers get money from me, then you can be damn sure I'll do my best to ensure that I get some of that back, or else just emigrate so that FF can't rob me to pay them.

But NAMA isn't a "break for developers" - the loans have been transferred in total to NAMA, so a developer who owed €100m to Anglo now owes €100m to NAMA. In some cases NAMA may choose to write down the loan, but in those same circumstances the bank would have done so as well.

Transferring all the mortgages in the Irish banks into NAMA II would make no difference to the mortgage holders. They'd still owe their mortgages exactly as before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

20Cent · 22-02-2011 10:47PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't really consider "irresponsible lending" to be a meaningful idea except to the lender, with the one exception of lending to someone recognisably mentally deficient. I don't really see how one can consider oneself an adult before the law and capable of being "irresponsibly lent to" - one can borrow irresponsibly, certainly, but the responsibility there is surely that of the borrower. You won't get your money back from a bookie if you gamble the kids' food money, because it's not the bookie's job to ensure you're gambling responsibly. Nor will you get your money back from a bookshop by claiming that the bookshop sold you a book irresponsibly when you were down to your last few euro. Same thing when it comes to renting money.

What about a lender lending money it does not have to people who could not possibly pay it back ultimately being bailed out by the taxpayer. Pretty irresponsible imho.

Scofflaw · 23-02-2011 12:07AM

20Cent wrote: »

What about a lender lending money it does not have to people who could not possibly pay it back ultimately being bailed out by the taxpayer. Pretty irresponsible imho.

In respect of the taxpayer, I agree, as I said. In respect of the people "who could not possibly pay it back", it was irresponsible for them to borrow, but only irresponsible for the lender to lend if they also advised the borrower to borrow more than they could repay.

If you take out a business loan for €150k to expand your business based on your own projections, and the expansion doesn't work out and you can't pay the loan back, is that irresponsible lending? No, obviously not - you made the projections.

If you work out you need €150k to expand your business based on your own projections, and the bank persuades you to take out €200k rather than leave a safety margin, then the bank is advising you badly and irresponsibly lending to you.

If bank employees colluded in people getting loans bigger than were repayable under sensible assumptions by fudging the numbers, then they were irresponsible, and if the bank encouraged such behaviour by their employees then they were irresponsible - but they're not responsible for people taking out loans on their own advice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Developers to Sue over being allowed to borrow.

Comments