Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lenihan indemnifies Anglo Irish directors

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    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.
    It covers future court actions, which most likely would be the result of past actions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    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/

    Isn't this exactly what was going on in Anglo though?

    They were lending money to people to buy shares with the share themselves as the only security for the loan.

    That would seem to be exactly what they are trying to protect the directors from.

    I agree that it won't over ride the law as it can't obviously do that but it does absolve them of responsibility for poor actions in their jobs completely making them not personally responsible for their actions that might have brought the bank to its knee's and now the tax payer is being asked to pay for that and has to bail them out (which is debatable in itself).

    Looks more like they were bailed out to protect them and this is further protection for these "friends" of FF. That's what it looks like and that is why it is so unacceptable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Loose from the fact that baling out the banks the way they have been baled out while companies that actualy do something tangible are let go to the wall sickens me what is the reason for this ?

    To the best of my knowledge not a single company director has ever been sanctioned in court or by regulatory authorities unless their actions were fraudulent or criminal.

    So why the need for this indemnity deal ? Ok the old boys club will be down a few members for a little while but it's amazing how quick some people "recover" from such little mishaps.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭i57dwun4yb1pt8


    holy fcuking christ on a crutch ( sorry Mr Ahern - you c.unt )

    why arent we dragging these people out of dail eireann and shooting them ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    thebman wrote: »
    Isn't this exactly what was going on in Anglo though?

    They were lending money to people to buy shares with the share themselves as the only security for the loan.

    That would seem to be exactly what they are trying to protect the directors from.

    No, I dont think that clause covers that.

    My take is that this is has to do with a) Anglo's loan approval policy and b) possibly cases where director's intervened to over ride this policy.

    All this is just my reading / theory. The later is pure speculation - I have no solid reason to believe that even happened.


    There are laws about lending money to invest in ones own company. I do not know the remit of the Director of Corporate Enforcement's investigation but Id bet money this is on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    I am still caught in a Kalidescope of images from the day Bernie Madoff was led from his Ney York apartment in handcuffs AND leg chains.....whilst back in the real world our Irish Independent carried a picture of a smiling Seanie Fitz on the tee at Greystones.....The correlation between the two images said it all....no words were required ! :eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    To the best of my knowledge not a single company director has ever been sanctioned in court or by regulatory authorities unless their actions were fraudulent or criminal.

    So why the need for this indemnity deal ?

    I dont know that kind of legal precedent, but my take is that these articles were seen as a mere efficiency item to save time and money.

    There are a number of pending civil actions against the bank and the directors. Im not in the legal profession, but to me they dont seem well founded or winable.

    Under the companies existing rules the company covered a directors costs in any legal proceedings if they are found innocent. Under these rules the directors will be spared the cost of defending themselves from certain civil actions.

    Defending oneself can be incredibly expensive. I think a day in the high court costs about 20k. Someones life could be ruined defending a frivolous action.

    Or perhaps these articles in some way facilitate the possible pending criminal proceedings. I dont know.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Off to the salt mines with the lot of them. B*stards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    So this is nothing to do with the Anglo 10 then? Remember them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Maybe, but I dont think so.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭givyjoe81


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



    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.


    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.


    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.

    With regard to your first point, well if the directors were acting honestly, they would NOT need such a clause, simple as really. So there was no need to introduce this indemnity.

    Directors are held personally responsible if they have acted fraudulently, recklessly etc, which is EXACTLY what the directors in the high profile recent did.

    Also, law which is enacted, cannot be deployed retrspecitively, as far as i recall, so logically such an indemnity would not apply restrospectively to cover the actions of directors recently stepped down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    If the management and Directors were to be charged and appear in court it would be a disaster for the government. As the story unfolded it would be obvious that the government was deeply involved every step of the way. The cronyism goes on nonstop and will only end when the ECB or IMF takes control of the country. There are benefits to EU membership they may save us from our dysfunctional politics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    givyjoe81 wrote: »
    With regard to your first point, well if the directors were acting honestly, they would NOT need such a clause, simple as really. So there was no need to introduce this indemnity.
    Why not?
    Directors are held personally responsible if they have acted fraudulently, recklessly etc, which is EXACTLY what the directors in the high profile recent did.
    What change has been made to who instances like these are dealt with?
    Also, law which is enacted, cannot be deployed retrspecitively, as far as i recall, so logically such an indemnity would not apply restrospectively to cover the actions of directors recently stepped down.

    Actually they can, but thats irrelevant because this isnt a law.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    DaDumTish wrote: »
    why arent we dragging these people out of dail eireann and shooting them ?
    Because it's illegal. If you have nothing more constructive to contribute to this forum than advocating violence, I strongly suggest that you resist the urge to post.

    That applies across the board. Remember: discussion forum. Not rant platform.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because it's illegal. If you have nothing more constructive to contribute to this forum than advocating violence, I strongly suggest that you resist the urge to post.

    That applies across the board. Remember: discussion forum. Not rant platform.

    Yep stringing them up from a lamp post with piano wire is illegal.

    Of course them carrying out insider trading, breaking normal company law by using company loans to buy shares, misleading shareholders & the markets and hiding director loans, thus resulting in the taxpayers of this country having to suffer even poorer health services and education because we have to stump up billions for the rest of our days to save these corrupt ill run banks is not illegal or only slightly illegal maybe it seems.

    Any chance new government could quickly pass a law to make it illegal to drag the name of the country through the gutter, you know a charge a bit like bringing the game into disrepute in soccer ?
    Saying that half the churchmen/women in the country would be in the nick as well.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    jmayo wrote: »
    Of course them carrying out insider trading, breaking normal company law by using company loans to buy shares, misleading shareholders & the markets and hiding director loans...is not illegal or only slightly illegal maybe it seems.

    How so?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭solice


    jmayo wrote: »
    Any chance new government could quickly pass a law to make it illegal to drag the name of the country through the gutter

    A quick ammendment to the Blasphemous Bill would do - Do not take the lords name in vain*

    I am no legal expert but the idea of offering these people an indemnity sickens me in the same way that 800 of the worst offenders in the Ryan Report were given an indemnity against prosecution.

    Giving people a "get out of jail free card" in order to speed the process up is harldy in the spirit of the law. Justice must be served and I can only imagine how many hours, days, weeks and months will be wasted by prosecution lawyers (if it even gets to court) trying to bring this hurdle down.

    The idea that the directors would have to pay the legal bills themselves if they were found guilty is only just and fair. Fine, if they are found innocent let the bank cover the costs, but if they are found guilty then they should be held personally liable. Those were the conditions that they worked under when they made these dodgy deals, those are the conditions that they should be prosecuted under.

    Bringing these people to court would hardly constitue a frivilous claim. They themselves having to pay for their own defence seems only natural no matter how many thousands it is. After all, its not like they can claim for free legal aid, they have the financial ability to pay for any defence. They made sure of that a long time ago...

    * Lord = Church & State aka The Republic of Ireland


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    How so?

    How so ?

    Lets transpose Anglo to US and see what would be the opinion regarding rent a deposit scheme they had going with IL&P or the fact they lent money to 10 connected individuals to buy CFDs in Anglo actaully apparently secured on the shares themselves. AFAIK that contravenees even company law in Ireland ?

    Then we can see the director loans being moved back and forth to another institution.

    Has anybody in Ireland ever done time for insider trading ?
    Will anybody from Anglo ever do time ?
    I very much doubt it.
    Will anybody from Anglo even be hauled before the courts ?
    Who knows but they will either find a lack of evidence, they nothing illegal technically or some other out.

    Meanwhile the international community have written us off as a bunch of chancers and after last week a bunch of peadophiles.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    DaDumTish wrote: »
    holy fcuking christ on a crutch ( sorry Mr Ahern - you c.unt )

    why arent we dragging these people out of dail eireann and shooting them ?

    I've been asking that question for a few years now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    jmayo wrote: »
    How so ?

    Lets transpose Anglo to US and see what would be the opinion regarding rent a deposit scheme they had going with IL&P or the fact they lent money to 10 connected individuals to buy CFDs in Anglo actaully apparently secured on the shares themselves. AFAIK that contravenees even company law in Ireland ?

    Then we can see the director loans being moved back and forth to another institution.

    Has anybody in Ireland ever done time for insider trading ?
    Will anybody from Anglo ever do time ?
    I very much doubt it.
    Will anybody from Anglo even be hauled before the courts ?
    Who knows but they will either find a lack of evidence, they nothing illegal technically or some other out.

    Meanwhile the international community have written us off as a bunch of chancers and after last week a bunch of peadophiles.

    You're obviously an expert on the subject, so since you've read the thread, and know what you're talking about, could you please explain it in lay man's Enlish

    I'm presuming you read the thread to date. At the very least you couldnt have missed the longest post in this thread.

    Since you are certain that I am misinterpreting these articles, can you please break them down into lay man's English for me.

    Also, since you're disagreeing with my understanding of Irish law, can you explain to me how changes to the Articles of Association have over written Company Law.

    Granted Ive only studied company law at undergrad level, so please break it down into nice manageable chunks that I can understand.

    How do these changes affect the 6 named investigations into Anglo?
    Sorry how foolish of me, you've already made it clear these ongoing investigations have been scrapped. Sorry to waste your valuable time.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Hasschu wrote: »
    The cronyism goes on nonstop and will only end when the ECB or IMF takes control of the country. There are benefits to EU membership they may save us from our dysfunctional politics.

    If the IMF take over then you will see some real cronyism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Akrasia wrote: »
    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.



    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.

    I inferred from your post, as Im sure many others did, that the title of the SBP article was " Lenihan gives Anglo Directors a state pardon."
    Its not, and that a misleading title, because no such thing has happened.

    I think thats misleading, and would urge you to rename the thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Thread title changed to that of the more accurate wording used in the Sunday Times. A pardon would imply that the Anglo directors had been found guilty of something illegal in court, which isn't the case at the moment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 690 ✭✭✭givyjoe81


    Why not?


    What change has been made to who instances like these are dealt with?



    Actually they can, but thats irrelevant because this isnt a law.

    Which laws can be dealt with retrsopectively? Im asking as it was explained to me by my lecturer some time ago that this practice is infeasible, or un whatever the correct term is. Think about it, how far back would you go,plus its hardly fait to prosecute someone today for something they did yesterday which was in effect, still legal, e.g. changing the age of consent.

    No its not a law, but surely the same principle would apply,. being a legal instrument, contained in a legal document bound by legal rules etc.

    As for why not, well the current law deals with the issue of honesty adequately, if you act honestly then you wont be done for reckless or fraudulent trading, so is there a need for another indemnity or whatever this actually is?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭hellboy99


    This and everything else of late that has been going on, this has got to be the worse FF party / government ever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    givyjoe81 wrote: »
    Which laws can be dealt with retrsopectively? Im asking as it was explained to me by my lecturer some time ago that this practice is infeasible, or un whatever the correct term is. Think about it, how far back would you go,plus its hardly fait to prosecute someone today for something they did yesterday which was in effect, still legal, e.g. changing the age of consent.

    My legal knowledge is confined to business law, so I dont know how it is possible, but I can name an example:
    The Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 was signed into law on 2 October, but could govern actions which had already happened (granted it was only backdated 2 days). This emergency legislation was back dated. I dont know the ins and outs, but I deduce that it is possible to have a retrospective law.
    No its not a law, but surely the same principle would apply,. being a legal instrument, contained in a legal document bound by legal rules etc.
    See the same post that I refer to below
    As for why not, well the current law deals with the issue of honesty adequately, if you act honestly then you wont be done for reckless or fraudulent trading, so is there a need for another indemnity or whatever this actually is?

    I've given an example already of one reason you might need added protection. A simple ctr+f for Kap should help you find my posts.

    There may be others.


    My reading of these articles
    Anglo Irish Bank had a poor business model that resulted in huge losses and bankruptcy (had they not been nationalised)

    These articles are to the effect that the directors shall not be liable for these losses:
    where they are the result of company policies; and
    the directors acted legitimately.

    I do not see how these articles affect the ongoing investigations into Anglo Irish Bank eg. Insider trading, the IL+P deposits, loans to by shares in itself etc.

    They could be relevant where a director were being sued for specific instances of negligence re: company policy.


    I would love to know more.
    I am curious what purpose they serve, and what Lenihans motivation was.
    I hope that justice is done, and anyone deserving sanctions is sanctioned - as I would in any instance, and that these articles in no way impede that.
    This entire thread though seems to be a cesspit of poor information,


  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    There are many references to 'Irish Law". The first thing to understand about "Irish Law" is that it is a moving target. Lenihan moved the target when he granted indemnity to AI management and directors. Presumably the target has now moved to the taxpayers who will make whole the AI creditors. Ireland is now a socialist country in that the liabilities of the very well off have been socialized. That is every Paddy and Sheila that pays taxes is now under an obligation to pay through the nose for the failures of badly run businesses. The gains of those businesses are flying out of the country to tax havens all over the world as you read this. You did not vote for this but under "Irish Law" it is all perfectly legal. My dear departed mother used to say "Shooting would be too good for them, slow hanging would suit much better." She was referring to British atrocities but I am sure she would have come up with something similar to suit present circumstances.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭thebigcheese22


    Hasschu wrote: »
    Ireland is now a socialist country in that the liabilities of the very well off have been socialized. That is every Paddy and Sheila that pays taxes is now under an obligation to pay through the nose for the failures of badly run businesses. The gains of those businesses are flying out of the country to tax havens all over the world as you read this. You did not vote for this but under "Irish Law" it is all perfectly legal.

    That is the very opposite of socialism. If Ireland were a socialist country, we would have nationalised the banks and let Anglo Irish go to the wall, whither and die like it should be. Instead we're bailing out the banks with our money, and getting absolutely no reward for it.

    It was a socialist-looking move, nationalising Anglo, but it was the very anthesis of what people like Connolly died for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Lenihan is a complete idiot, I expect some more of his nauseating self praise soon in the vein of... I took the amazingly courageous decision to do this, as the entire universe looks on with awe and respect for my new best idea ever.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭Hasschu


    Thebigcheese22- In fact it is a perversion of socialism or as I see it socialism Irish style. The liabilities are what was socialized, hence the perversion. The assets remained privatized and whatever was liquid is being drained off to tax havens out of reach of any new gov't. I would agree with you wholly if the Irish gov't had taken over the banks lock stock and barrel however they rejected taking over anything of value and settled to take over the losses. Only the Swedes and Norwegians actually took over their failing banks in the early 1990s and sold them back to the private sector at a profit 5 to 10 years later. Nepotism and cronyism are not high on the list of traits exhibited by Scandinavians.


Advertisement