Lenihan indemnifies Anglo Irish directors

Akrasia

According to yesterdays Sunday Business Post, Brian Lenihan has signed an indemnity in secret to protect the corrupt directors of Anglo Irish Bank from any personal losses arising from any legal action brought against them.

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=MARKETS-qqqs=themarket-qqqid=41906-qqqx=1.asp
The new articles contain a clause indemnifying individual Anglo directors from legal actions taken on foot of ‘‘acts, receipts, neglects or defaults’’ of any other director or officer.

The indemnity also provides that no director or secretary of Anglo shall be liable for events such as:

* any loss or expense happening to the company through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired by the directors for, or on behalf of, the company’’;

* ‘‘the insufficiency or deficiency of any security in . . . which any of the moneys of the company shall be vested’’;

* ‘‘any loss or damage arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or (wrongful) act by any person with whom moneys, securities or effects shall be deposited’’; or

* ‘‘any other loss, damage or misfortune whatever, which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his office . . . unless the same happens through his own wilful act or default’’.

The new arrangements also provide for indemnity in cases where the director was ‘‘joining in any receipt or other act for conformity’’, and will require Anglo to pay all ‘‘costs, losses and expenses’’ which directors incur or become liable to pay.

So the bank, which we now own will have to pay any compensation awarded in any suit against the directors of Anglo Irish Bank for their negligance.

The government are the only shareholder in this bank, the government has to have approved this new clause in the articles of associatiion and it is a total and utter disgrace.

I can't think of any scenario where this could be considered anything other than an act of corruption.

JonathanAnon

The more I hear about the banking, the more I feel like throwing my hands up in the air. Lenihan is an idiot, unqualified for the job, and should have been replaced after his little "well it didnt jump out at me" episode regarding the Anglo report.

This is the same country that will put you in jail for protesting or not paying the TV license. I mean wtf is going on.

ionix5891

oh dear god

if this is not a nail in FF/Greens coffin then what is?

solice

Jobs for the boys?

thebman

I don't know how anyone can vote for a party this corrupt TBH.

The excuse that the others would be just as bad given half the chance doesn't hold up. At least give someone else a chance before judging them instead of supporting the people that have shown that they are corrupt time and time again.

jmayo

FFS please tell me this is Arpil 1st again :mad:

I despair...
Why doesn't ff reappoint them to state boards to really rub it in.

In any other country just one of their little schemes would probably mean hefty fines if not jail.
We had:
Misleading the markets by having another bank temporarily deposit billions of funds.
Lending money to investors to buy CFDs/shares in the bank itself
Hiding director loans from shareholders

gandalf

Disgusting, but understandable given the organisation was the primary conduit of loans for FF's Developer godfathers. I am sure those directors and officiers have quite a few dodgy stories about connected people to the celtic mafia that the soldiers of destiny have become.

Nodin

Akrasia wrote: »

I can't think of any scenario where this could be considered anything other than an act of corruption.

In the absence of any reason being put forward to the contrary, its rather impossible to disagree.

thebman

jmayo wrote: »

FFS please tell me this is Arpil 1st again :mad:

I despair...
Why doesn't ff reappoint them to state boards to really rub it in.

In any other country just one of their little schemes would probably mean hefty fines if not jail.
We had:
Misleading the markets by having another bank temporarily deposit billions of funds.
Lending money to investors to buy CFDs/shares in the bank itself
Hiding director loans from shareholders

Give them time. I reckon in 6 months or so they will have done this. Probably overseeing (read fooking up) some infrastructure project and harming the public more for decades to come.

Incredible really

Nodin wrote: »

In the absence of any reason being put forward to the contrary, its rather impossible to disagree.

It would be really nice if someone who still intends on voting for FF could give the reason why this and the undisclosed donations isn't changing their mind.

solice

Has this been picked up by other news channels RTE, TV3, Irish Times etc? I havent heard it anywhere else...

ionix5891

solice wrote: »

Has this been picked up by other news channels RTE, TV3, Irish Times etc? I havent heard it anywhere else...

RTE? hahaha the propaganda machine that they are

thebman

solice wrote: »

Has this been picked up by other news channels RTE, TV3, Irish Times etc? I havent heard it anywhere else...

Do you not think it is a reputable source?

solice

thebman wrote: »

Do you not think it is a reputable source?

I do. Im just wondering why it hasnt hit the headlines today. Not alot of people would read the Sunday Business Post in comparison to the Irish Times or the Independent

Liam Byrne

Did the idiot sign that indemnity before or after he didn't read the report that warned about the state of Anglo's finances ?

Who the F**K gave him the right or the mandate to indemnify ANY corrupt scumbag ? :mad:

The Dail is meant to CREATE legislation, not circumvent it!

And could he just as easily give a state pardon to any FF members who are found to be corrupt ?

After this revelation, we should have a General Election TOMORROW.

thebman

I can't think of a single person who wants this to happen that isn't going to gain from it. The only conclusion can be that the government is acting against the people to protect itself and its interests.

I agree with Liam Byrne's post that we need a general election after this. They obviously aren't acting in the interest of the people with their actions and can't be let remain in power if the are going to go against the people like this to protect themselves.

LookingFor

I'm a constituent of his, REALLY feel like making an appointment at his constituency office and asking him face-to-face for his reasoning on this (and, come to think of it, many other things).

meglome

I naively thought that I couldn't hear news that would piss me off more than I was already, sadly I was wrong. This is just crazy.

ejmaztec

So, next time a company director is accused of fraudulent trading, he will be immediately let off the hook when his lawyers tool themselves up with this "precedent". :pac:

ArmaniJeanss

I've never heard of this sort of indemnity being part of our legal system before.
Can Brian Lenihan (or any other minister) actually do this?

If the Garda Fraud Squad / DPP investigated and considered there was evidence for a prosection, where would this 'indemnity' actually fit into the process?

LoLth

from what I can read of this it looks like:

Director is found to have done wrong. We (the taxpayer) pay to bring him up on charges, we pay to defend him seeign as its related to Anglo Irish, a long drawn out case ensues with solicitors on both sides paid for by us, Government wins! Hefty fine put in place, we pay it. Government loses. Compensation awarded. we pay it.

When did the average taxpayer turn into the humans in AvP ? whichever side wins, we lose......

thebman

LoLth wrote: »

from what I can read of this it looks like:

Director is found to have done wrong. We (the taxpayer) pay to bring him up on charges, we pay to defend him seeign as its related to Anglo Irish, a long drawn out case ensues with solicitors on both sides paid for by us, Government wins! Hefty fine put in place, we pay it. Government loses. Compensation awarded. we pay it.

When did the average taxpayer turn into the humans in AvP ? whichever side wins, we lose......

lol that just looks like it is going to be a tribunal so.

Looks like justice has happened but in reality all they did was employ lawyers for a few years.

bmaxi

It's a General Election à la France 1789 that's needed at this stage. Why arent Bruton and Burton crawling all over this? This is criminal. I have never tried to hide my abhorrence of FF and all they slither for but a vote for them must be tantamount to treason after this.

Liam Byrne

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm a constituent of his, REALLY feel like making an appointment at his constituency office and asking him face-to-face for his reasoning on this (and, come to think of it, many other things).

Please do, and post his excuses (sorry, replies) here.......

hellboy99

Seems you can get away with anything in this country these days once your in with FF.

It's been said to me many a time over the years that, "Ireland is a country for the rich, corrupt, criminals and who you know in government, if you have all these traits you will go far and get away with anything", looks like it's true :mad:

Liam Byrne

I've used the contact form on their website to send on the link above and ask them for an explanation....

Also going to forward it to The Last Word and see if Matt can get them to comment....

givyjoe81

I literally cannot get my head around this if it is true... Why on earth would Lenihan put this in place which would effectively prevent ANY of these guys being brought to justice.

I have being thinking for a while, why these guys havent been done under fraudulent or reckless trading, where you CAN (as far as my legal knowledge serves me correctly) be made personally liable for the debts of the company, up to imprisonment?? Not too sure about the latter.

So why on earth deny the whole country what they desperately want to see, i.e. these guys being made to account for what they have done, and effectively commit political suicide, as if tying their neuse themselves wasnt already enough.

Complely Illogical.

jimmycrackcorm

Maybe I read it wrong but when I did, I assumed that the indemnity was to cover any actions that might be taken by the directors going forward and not retrospective.

thebman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Maybe I read it wrong but when I did, I assumed that the indemnity was to cover any actions that might be taken by the directors going forward and not retrospective.

Why would it be needed going forward? Better again why should it be acceptable to have it going forward?

peasant

Has anyone found any other sources for this story? Not that I don't believe the Sunday Business Post ...I just find it unbelievable, full stop.

And if it's true ...wouldn't now be the time for pitchforks and torches?

thebman

Wasn't on RTE news that I saw but only caught second half of the news.

Stabshauptmann

Lets look at this indemnity and try put it into lay man terms. I dont think its as bad as people think.

First off, there are a lot of ongoing investigations into the goings on in Anglo Irish Bank.

By my count there are probes by

1. The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement;
2. the Garda Fraud Squad;
3. the Financial Regulator;
4. the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority;
5. the Chartered Accountants Regulatory Board's;
   
6. and the bank's own review involving an independent firm of solicitors and including a senior counsel.

The first two have implications for individual directors, the fourth and fifth have implications for anglo's auditors - the CARB can impose fines of up to €30,000 on individual accountancy firms and €30,000 per partner in a member firm, if a case of misconduct is proven.

Now lets look at how these new articles impact on the above investigations. From my reading of this, the indemnity does not cover the directors from fraud or the irregularities surrounding the migrating loans.

My understanding is that they cover specific instances where the directors made bad decision while they were acting honestly and within their authority on behalf of the company.


Directors are only ever held personally responsible for "bad decisions" where they acted fraudulently, recklessly, or beyond the scope of their authority.

I dont think that there is any change to a companies articles of association that can change that.

Let us examine the articles.

The new articles contain a clause indemnifying individual Anglo directors from legal actions taken on foot of ‘‘acts, receipts, neglects or defaults’’ of any other director or officer.

I am not a legal professional, but does that not mean that the directors are responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of other directors. I think that sounds fair.

The indemnity also provides that no director or secretary of Anglo shall be liable for events such as:

* any loss or expense happening to the company through the insufficiency or deficiency of title to any property acquired by the directors for, or on behalf of, the company’’;

This is a tricky one, and the only article that seems dodge to me. The insufficiency of title I take to mean the decision by a director to accept certain types of collateral which are now not worth as much as expected. A bad business decision, but so long as its made honestly, I dont see why the director should be liable. Why the deficiency of title would be tolerated I dont know.

Its like the director said, I know Pat, hes good for it, we dont need collateral from him. Thats reckless. Thats not in the shareholders best interest, and if this is connected to the issue of directors loans this is completely unacceptable to me.

BUT, I dont know the ins and outs, its just what Im reading into it/

* ‘‘the insufficiency or deficiency of any security in . . . which any of the moneys of the company shall be vested’’;

A bank typically has a lot of money which it invests. What this article is saying that if the bank invested in X (stocks, property, funds, gold etc), and X is now worth less than when it was bought, thats not the directors fault.
Personally, thats more or less fair, but there is the question of recklessness and duty of care. I dont think this article actually protects the directors if they were reckless but Im no legal eagle.

* ‘‘any loss or damage arising from the bankruptcy, insolvency or (wrongful) act by any person with whom moneys, securities or effects shall be deposited’’; or

More or less the same as above. If the bank for example didnt invest its money but put it on deposit with a number of other banks, and they were to go bankrupt, the director who made the decision to deposit money with that bank isnt to be held personally liable.

* ‘‘any other loss, damage or misfortune whatever, which shall happen in the execution of the duties of his office . . . unless the same happens through his own wilful act or default’’.

This is the key clause. If a director acted honestly and within his power, but his decision lead to a loss for the bank, he wont be personally liable to the bank for that loss.

To me that makes sense, and its the type of protection I would expect the director of a company to enjoy. What these articles will do is save time and money on pointless civil suits that would fail anyway.

Also to say that this is a state pardon is incorrect, the fact that the state is the only shareholder doesnt give these articles any greater effect than the articles of any other company. I dont think a company can not write articles into its Arts of Association that contrevene the companies acts or other statues.