Aberdeen Lodge Repossession

TomasMacR wrote: »

There’s a big echo in here without any answer of WHAT IN SWEET F*CKING JESUS HAPPENED TO THE €25 mill?!?!?!

Hold on. 25m. It was 26m. What happened to the other million since this thread was first started.:)

Deleted User wrote: »

If you add the two figures together, 23.9 plus 1.1 million equals 25 million

Was the Sandymount House put forward as collateral ?

Is there documentation signed by either or both of these people agreeing to the guarantee ?

Something is not stacking up here ....

AlekSmart wrote: »

Was the Sandymount House put forward as collateral ?

Is there documentation signed by either or both of these people agreeing to the guarantee ?

Something is not stacking up here ....

Why wouldn’t there be documentation signed?
The court determined in favour of the bank on the basis that guarantees were given.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Crossplan Investments Limited have a debt of over 23 million.

Elektron (which owns Aberdeen House) have a debt of 1.1 million.

Why are the debts of two different companies being combined? Anyone understand company law?

The couple are paying back on the ElektronAberdeen House debt but in some sort of personal capacity rather than an insolvent company. They have the ability to fund the debt completely and what they said on prime time about valuation of property now makes more sense. Goldman Sachs day it’s worth 3 million and they say it’s 2 million.

The two separate limited companies part is throwing me. I haven’t got my head around the legal talk on that bit.

Elecktron provided the guarantee for the crossplan loan. they were owned by the same people.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Crossplan Investments Limited have a debt of over 23 million.

Elektron (which owns Aberdeen House) have a debt of 1.1 million.

Why are the debts of two different companies being combined? Anyone understand company law?

Because, as reported, he gave a personal guarantee on the Crossplan loan. So it is more than just a Crossplan company debt. Presumably Crossplan were having difficuly getting the loan as a company so the personal guarantee was added as security.

Once Crossplan couldn't pay then any personal guarantor is in the firing line. Same as if you were to give a personal guarantee to a family member for a loan. If they defaulted, even if they went bankrupt, you would become liable for the loan. A company director leaves themselves exposed if they give a personal guarantee.

1641 wrote: »

Because, as reported, he gave a personal guarantee on the Crossplan loan. So it is more than just a Crossplan company debt. Presumably Crossplan were having difficuly getting the loan as a company so the personal guarantee was added as security.

Once Crossplan couldn't pay then any personal guarantor is in the firing line. Same as if you were to give a personal guarantee to a family member for a loan. If they defaulted, even if they went bankrupt, you would become liable for the loan. A company director leaves themselves exposed if they give a personal guarantee.

I have not seen any mention of a personal guarantee. There was a cross-company guarantee.

How can a b&b afford to pay €5k a month in repayments or am I missing something?

Really don't get how they think they're walking away from this and keeping that house. They put it up as a asset against a €25million loan, they can't repay that loan so they lose the asset.

I read about this story in the news over the weekend.

The reality is, this Lad was greedy.
He already had an amazing house, and plenty of cash and a wife 20+ years his Junior yet he wanted more.

He should never have been given 26 million. Again this is a case of a Bad Lender.
It should also be noted that the IBRC sold his €26m loan to Goldman Sachs for around €2m. Taxpayer has already lost out on this.

Finally, where is the €26m gone?
Surely he has something to show for it, a half built property or land or assets of some description.

The whole story just stinks.
Reminds me of Gorse Hill house in Killiney.

Just greedy litte f**kers that want more and more and more
Sicken
Your
Hole

BattleCorp wrote: »

Regarding your comment about being greedy and wanting more, isn't that the whole idea of business - to make as much as possible?

Yes, it turned out to be a bad investment, but when you are in business, there's nothing wrong with wanting more and more. That's the whole point of business.

Doing Business and being responsible are not mutually exclusive things.

Expansion is good (Rule 45/95 Expand or Die )
However expanding to fast is not good.
For 99% of family run businesses out there, expansion is slow, and takes multiple generations of the family to grow the business.

This Guy wanted to go from having a B&B to a Boutique Hotel in a couple of years.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Where has the €26m gone? I don't know but I'll guess.

Some of it probably went on the purchase of the site. Can't say what percentage.
Most of the rest of it probably went on doing up the site/construction etc. Can't say what percentage.

So where did the money go? Mostly to whoever sold the site and to whoever did the construction work.

All most likely correct, however there is something we're not hearing on this.

Money just doesn't disappear, there has to be assets somewhere.
Remember, these people are beyond greedy and have most likely squirreled away what assets remained of the failed project.

Feisar wrote: »

Why are banks allowed sell on debt? Can the person(s) who receive the loan do the same?

You can sell on the asset i.e. the property. The bank can sell on its asset i.e. the loan.

punisher5112 wrote: »

How can a b&b afford to pay €5k a month in repayments or am I missing something?

I think a lot of those giant B&Bs in Ballsbridge & Donnybrook charge premium prices to stay there, its not a whole lot cheaper than a 4 star hotel. A lot of foreign tourists want to experience an old Georgian house with a fireplace in their room. They could be flogging 15 rooms at €180 a night and easily clearing more than €15k a week.

Either way they are taking the p1ss here. Though I do wonder what happened them in NAMA, developers with debts of more than €5m got bailed out but it doesnt seem to have happened here for whatever reasons.

topper75 wrote: »

going into the EMU was a dumb, dumb move by Ireland. It is barely two decades in place but it destroyed our potential for slow steady growth twice already. It will do so again.

What's the alternative? What would have happened to our own, entirely independent currency during the financial storm? Or do you think we might have avoided it, like, er, Iceland?

Or would the old arrangement of a peg with sterling be more to your liking? How would that work out for us in these days of Brexit? Would that be amenable to the "slow, steady growth" of which you speak?

I only ask.

the irish don't like being evicted, end of, its in our DNA

fryup wrote: »

the irish don't like being evicted, end of, its in our DNA

The really incredible bit being that the VAST majority of Irish People are NEVER evicted....ever,in fact they go on to own,enjoy and depart this World in possession of,their property....Bizzarre or what,Joe....

Snickers Man wrote: »

What's the alternative? What would have happened to our own, entirely independent currency during the financial storm? Or do you think we might have avoided it, like, er, Iceland?

Or would the old arrangement of a peg with sterling be more to your liking? How would that work out for us in these days of Brexit? Would that be amenable to the "slow, steady growth" of which you speak?

I only ask.

Much more amenable than that 2001-2006 'smoke em if you got em' period. And much more amenable than the 2008-2012 disaster period. Both caused by having zero control over our monetary policy.

The alternative was to stay out of it altogether obviously. The euro is going nowhere because Germany is going nowhere. Germany will stay flat for at least another decade.

fryup wrote: »

the irish don't like being evicted, end of, its in our DNA

Not sure you're scientifically correct there but I take your main point: Irish people for historical reasons are most reluctant to tolerate the eviction of people from their homes and legal practice effectively reflects that. It is very difficult for creditors, usually banks or building societies, to gain possession of a person's normal dwelling place, especially for such trivial reasons as the resident not being able to pay for it. By and large, it's a humane policy and one to be commended.

But there's a cost to be endured. The cost is in greater financial risk for lenders. And it is basic economics that greater risk incurs more expensive borrowing costs, ie higher interest rates for everybody else. That's not an Irish thing, it's just a simple fact of economic life. Irish mortgage rates are higher than they tend to be elsewhere because it is factored in that if the people to whom one has lent money default on their payments, it is a fairly tortuous legal process to get the money out of them.

But no matter: we accept that and cough up. Because nobody likes to see people turfed out of their home. It may not be in our DNA, but its's certainly in our collective memory.

The other downside is that there is always the risk that some chancer is playing the system, running up debts, refusing to pay and knowing all along that it will be as much if not more trouble for the lender to get satisfaction than it will be for the defaulter to guard against forced removal. I am not necessarily saying that this is what happened in the case of Aberdeen Lodge but a calculating chancer will know that any attempt to forcibly evict a resident from their home will not only meet resistance in the courts but will also see a Social Justice Warrior rentamob turn up at the property ranting on about the Land League and what our forefathers fought for and wouldn't Michael Davitt be spinning in his grave at the sight of what Ireland has become.

Is this what has happened in the case of Aberdeen Lodge?

I know that it is a long-running case, and the sight of the couple in question turning to the media and making emotive rather than substantive arguments "We've nowhere to go" and "We never borrowed from Goldman Sachs in the first place" is bound to raise suspicions. It certainly does with me.

On the other hand, it seems that there are two loans at issue here: One is the mortgage on the property in which the couple now live (Aberdeen Lodge) and is the source of their income as a B&B. This is a mortgage that was transferred to Goldman Sachs from the original lender Irish Nationwide when it went bust. That loan is "performing", payments are being made every month. All well and good.

The other loan is a small matter of €26m which was borrowed by Mr Halpin in Tiger times as part of an investment in a larger hotel property that was being developed, presumably for resale. That was also sold on via NAMA when the original lenders went bust.

But what I'm not clear about is whether the loan and its collateral were sold on to the same people. Goldman Sachs bought the loan (for a song) and now want it to be repaid. But it seems the property that would have been the main collateral for the loan (the hotel development site) was also sold for a song, the property developed and then sold on for a tidy sum. (About €17m from memory)

But because Mr Halpin had personally guaranteed his loan, it seems he's still on the hook for at least some of it while somebody else has benefitted from the development and sale of a property that was bought very cheaply.

Is that fair?

Should it not be the case that he defaulted on his big loan, the lender takes the property and if it turns out to be a lot less than the loan that was advanced on it, then a negotiation should ensue to see how the burden is shared out between lender and creditor. But it seems a bit rich to transfer the property to one party for a song, they get to build and profit from it, but the loan that was sold to another party is still the liability of Mr Halpin.

Is this what happened here, or did Goldman Sachs buy both the bad loan and the collateral building? In which case, given they bought it for a song, shouldn't they be happy with the €17m?

If I have misunderstood or misread the facts of the case I will stand corrected but it doesn't seem to me to be a typical example of some cowboy chancing his arm over a "bog standard house" in millionaires row and expecting the world to cry for him.