Receiver appointed to Wallace properties

later12

One of the most recognized faces (or heads, rather) in the Dail had a receiver appointed to his properties, including his more well known property in the Italian Quarter on the Dublin quayside.

Apparently Wallace has little in the way of personal assets, which may mean he is unlikely to go backrupt.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0525/1224297715734.html

Apart from having difficulties in taking out a loan of more than €600, and a ban on managing a company for perhaps 12 years or more, in the event of any such bankruptcy being declared one of the more quirky aspects of our outdated bankruptcy law means that Mick Wallace would have to stand down from Dail Eireann.

Anyway, although Wallace himself seems quite confident that bankruptcy will not arise, it should be an interesting one to watch. Personally I have never understood the popularity of Mick Wallace, a developer who was elected to the Dail at a time when the word developer has practically become a dirty word.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the forthcoming bankruptcy legislation contains any change to the ban on bankrupts sitting in the Oireachtas. Would people be supportive or against such a move?

beeftotheheels

later10 wrote: »

One of the most recognized faces (or heads, rather) in the Dail had a receiver appointed to his properties, including his more well known property in the Italian Quarter on the Dublin quayside.

Apparently Wallace has little in the way of personal assets, which may mean he is unlikely to go backrupt.

Apart from having difficulties in taking out a loan of more than €600, and a ban on managing a company for perhaps 12 years or more, one of the more quirky aspects of our outdated bankruptcy laws, Mick Wallace would have to stand down from Dail Eireann, in the event of any such bankruptcy being declared.

Anyway, although Wallace himself seems quite confident that bankruptcy will not arise, it should be an interesting one to watch. Personally I have never understood the popularity of Mick Wallace, a developer who was elected to the Dail at a time when the word developer has practically become a dirty word.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see whether the forthcoming bankruptcy legislation contains any change to the ban on bankrupts sitting in the Oireachtas. Would people be supportive or against such a move?

In general I would approve of the notion that bankrupts should not be allowed to serve in the Dáil, yet we are in interesting times at the moment. The case in point being a non FF developer being the one on the hook and having registered so many votes because of who he was.

Yet I honestly don't see how to rationalize distinguishing it from Lowry or any of the others...

later12

It would be fascinating to see the fallout from any change to the bankruptcy legislation meaning that, in the event of Michael Lowry going bankrupt (should Moriarty recoup costs), he would hold onto his seat.

That would be a phenomenally un-popular political salvation... unpopular outside of the North Tipperary county line, that is.

mgmt

OUT OUT OUT


We cannot have bankrupts making legislation. If he had any dignity he would resign.

Einhard

later10 wrote: »

Personally I have never understood the popularity of Mick Wallace, a developer who was elected to the Dail at a time when the word developer has practically become a dirty word.

mgmt wrote: »

We cannot have bankrupts making legislation. If he had any dignity he would resign.

Oh but sure, don't ye know. Mick Wallace isn't like those other developers! He built lovely apartments altogether, and was motivated by a desire to help the common man, not by filthy lucre! And sure doesn't he wear pink shirts, and have long hair, and stick it to the man on behalf of his fellow working class comrades?!

It really is amazing how easy it it to pull one over on the average constituent...

Cavehill Red

Bertie Ahern went years without a tax clearance cert, in clear contravention of Dail rules, and even served as a Taoiseach without this most simple requirement.
Beverly Flynn faced bankruptcy after she sued RTE over an alleged libel that she had advised people on how to avoid tax, and lost when it was found she had been doing exactly that. Yet somehow RTE failed to insist on full payment, and she was able to stay in the Dail.
Yet Mick Wallace should be fucked out?

Einhard

Einhard wrote: »

Oh but sure, don't ye know. Mick Wallace isn't like those other developers! He built lovely apartments altogether, and was motivated by a desire to help the common man, not by filthy lucre! And sure doesn't he wear pink shirts, and have long hair, and stick it to the man on behalf of his fellow working class comrades?!

It really is amazing how easy it it to pull one over on the average constituent...

I worked with Mick over a summer in 95. Back then, (I don't know him anymore since the job finished) he was without doubt, one of the nicest hard working men I met. He was a wealthy man back then, but in the heatwave of 95, he was out there everyday with the lads, slogging away and building a wall (or a pool - not important)

Honestly, opinions like yours, which have absolutely no basis in fact should be withheld. Meet the man and come back to me and see if you have the same opinion.

mgmt

Papa Smut wrote: »

I worked with Mick over a summer in 95. Back then, (I don't know him anymore since the job finished) he was without doubt, one of the nicest hard working men I met. He was a wealthy man back then, but in the heatwave of 95, he was out there everyday with the lads, slogging away and building a wall (or a pool - not important)

Honestly, opinions like yours, which have absolutely no basis in fact should be withheld. Meet the man and come back to me and see if you have the same opinion.

It dons't matter if he is/was a nice guy. If he is a bankrupt he can be easily corrupted and will probably not work in the best interests of the Irish people, but what's best for him.

mgmt

mgmt wrote: »

It dons't matter if he is/was a nice guy. If he is a bankrupt he can be easily corrupted and will probably not work in the best interests of the Irish people, but what's best for him.

If bankrupt, you're bankrupt and shouldn't be in the Dail.

My problem was with Einhards post and it's condescending attitude and cynicism. There'll be an awful lot of good people being made bankrupt over the next few years.

Not all developers were greedy useless fecks. The same way not all politicians are dirty rotten scoundrels serving their own interests.

later12

Papa Smut wrote: »

My problem was with Einhards post and it's condescending attitude and cynicism. There'll be an awful lot of good people being made bankrupt over the next few years.

Not really. Very few people successfully go bankrupt in Ireland. I worked in two Irish based banks since the start of the financial crisis and have, in that time, never met an Irish bankrupt.

Also, Mick Wallace's nice guy image (notwithstanding that he's an amenable sort of chap with whom to build a wall) is not remotely relevant.

Personally, I dislike his politics and although I am sure FF find his re-invention fascinating... don't we all... I don't think much of him as a TD. He is a populist, and while that is not wrong in itself, Wallace is something worse - an uninformed populist. I have heard numerous interviews with him by now and his negligence to inform himself of economic issues, for a man whose success was on the coat tails of poor economic leadership, should not be acceptable.

Nevertheless he is the people's choice, his financial troubles have long been known and despite my own opinions of Wallace, I don't think that (in an ideal world) the democratic choice should be interfered with in this case.

Einhard

Papa Smut wrote: »

I worked with Mick over a summer in 95. Back then, (I don't know him anymore since the job finished) he was without doubt, one of the nicest hard working men I met. He was a wealthy man back then, but in the heatwave of 95, he was out there everyday with the lads, slogging away and building a wall (or a pool - not important)

I'm sure he is a lovely guy. I never claimed he wasn't, and I feel sympathy for anyone whose business has suffered during the recession.

Honestly, opinions like yours, which have absolutely no basis in fact should be withheld.

Hold on a minute. I never claimed anything about Wallace. Indeed, the opinion I expressed touched on the electorate, and their political scitzophrenia and not on Wallace. I'm not exactly sure how I'm s'posed to base on fact an opinion that's extant only in your imagination..

Meet the man and come back to me and see if you have the same opinion.

Again, what opinion are you referring to? My point is that developers are reviled in this country. Not on an individual basis, but as a group. I'm sure many of them are hardworking, decent men, who put their all into their businesses, gamled a little as all business men do, and as Wallace did, and unfortunately lost out. Yet, there is no special pleading on their behalf. There's no appeals on their behalf. That's the point I'm making. It refers to the electorate and their unsurpassed abilities in doublethink in political matters.

Papa Smut wrote: »

My problem was with Einhards post and it's condescending attitude and cynicism. There'll be an awful lot of good people being made bankrupt over the next few years.
Not all developers were greedy useless fecks. The same way not all politicians are dirty rotten scoundrels serving their own interests.

I'd describe my attitude of one of frustration and exasperation rather than condescension and cynicism. Well, actually, yes cynicism, but at the notion that the Irish people as an electorate have matured one iota as a result of this crisis, rather than anything else. I agree with you completely- not all politicians or developers are rotten. Most of the latter at least were honestly trying to make a profit, and employing thousands in doing so. But the people needed a scapegoat, and an entire group was targetted. That may be unfair, but it is somewhat understandable.

However, the manner in which certain exceptions are made to this blanket hostility is not understandable, and is, IMO, indicative of an immaturity on the part of many Irish people in the sphere of political affairs. Wallace is given a pass. You say it's because he's a nice guy. Others say it's because his projects were of high quality. But many other developers tick those particular boxes. The fact is, that he is exalted because he has an anti-establishment streak, because he has long hair, and wears pink t-shirts, and says things that others wouldn't say. If he wore a nice suit, and had nicely coiffured hair, he wouldn't get the same pass, or be seen as an anti-establishment figure, and people wouldn't be defending him here.

The same goes for that guy who crashed his cement mixer into the Dail. This place was awash with support for him, and he managed to portray himself as some Little Man standing up for the average Joe, sticking it to the establishment which brought us to this mess. Except, he was part of that very establishment. His developments were bust. His loans were transferred to NAMA. His debts were guaranteed by the state. But this was all forgotten because he drove a truck into a gate. I'm only half being facetious in suggesting that Brian Cowen would be forgiven all if only he would daub Sean FitzPatrick's house in tar.

So, I've nothing against Wallace personally. Politically, I think he's callow, and his positions on things are ill-conceived and ill-defined, but he brings a bit of colour to proceedings, and I wouldn't welcome his removal from the Dail through bankruptcy. My issue is not with him, but with the political bankruptcy of many Irish people. Wallace and the other guy were as much part of the establishment as many other developers who, as you point out, are good, decent men. Yet they get a pass, and the latter are reviled. And it's purely because so many Irish people allow their intellect to be bypassed when it comes to politics, and get giddy at a bit of anti-establishment guff. That's what pisses me off, and depresses me, and makes me uncertain that any meaningul lessons will be learnt from this mess we're in.

dan_d

If he has few personal assets, how is he unlikely to be declared bankrupt?

That logic doesn't seem to make much sense to me...surely bankruptcy should be declared if you haven't got enough to cover your bills when the banks come a-knocking...no?

beeftotheheels

dan_d wrote: »

If he has few personal assets, how is he unlikely to be declared bankrupt?

Cost benefit analysis - there is no point in having him declared bankrupt unless it more than covers the fees associated with having him declared bankrupt.

later12

dan_d wrote: »

If he has few personal assets, how is he unlikely to be declared bankrupt?

As beeftotheheels said it's a cost/ benefit question. Going bankrupt in Ireland is, ironically, an expensive process.

A bank might be better placed to chase on personal guarantees given Wallace's €92,000 salary. If he went bankrupt he would presumably have no salary for a bank to chase, and perhaps no significant assets.

dsmythy

Papa Smut wrote: »

I worked with Mick over a summer in 95. Back then, (I don't know him anymore since the job finished) he was without doubt, one of the nicest hard working men I met. He was a wealthy man back then, but in the heatwave of 95, he was out there everyday with the lads, slogging away and building a wall (or a pool - not important)

Honestly, opinions like yours, which have absolutely no basis in fact should be withheld. Meet the man and come back to me and see if you have the same opinion.

I wonder if he's changed at all in the last 16 years.

godtabh

have all his assets been transfered to his wife or something?

Surely he made some personal money out of his developments?

I've met him once or twice many years ago through football. He helped a lot of people out there and I'll give him his dues for that

Einhard

Einhard, I mistook you and for that, apologise. I thought you were being sarky to Mick. He is a man I'll defend (and there's not many out there I would!)

But as regards

Einhard wrote:

However, the manner in which certain exceptions are made to this blanket hostility is not understandable, and is, IMO, indicative of an immaturity on the part of many Irish people in the sphere of political affairs. Wallace is given a pass. You say it's because he's a nice guy. Others say it's because his projects were of high quality. But many other developers tick those particular boxes. The fact is, that he is exalted because he has an anti-establishment streak, because he has long hair, and wears pink t-shirts, and says things that others wouldn't say. If he wore a nice suit, and had nicely coiffured hair, he wouldn't get the same pass, or be seen as an anti-establishment figure, and people wouldn't be defending him here.

I actually see the fact we can vote in someone a bit different from the norm is an exceptional sign of maturity. His electorate saw an honest man, that thinks a bit differently to the usual and voted him in on the first count. 10 years ago, I believe that wouldn't have happened.

later12

godtabh wrote: »

have all his assets been transfered to his wife or something?

Well one would presume that he has had some personal interest in a house in the not-too-distant past, yes.

If the house is a shared ownership, or a shared interest has been shown by way of contributions, then as far as I know Mick Wallace's wife may nevertheless be forced by way of a court order to put the house on the market. Obviously if the house is in Mick Wallace's sole name then it is clearly part of the estate in the event of a bankruptcy being declared.

However, if the house is Mrs Wallace's alone, or if it is held in trust, then the house will not form part of the estate available to creditors. Because Mick Wallace says he has no significant assets, it would appear logical, though not definite, that any shared interest he had which might have existed is not longer extant.

Einhard

Papa Smut wrote: »

Einhard, I mistook you and for that, apologise. I thought you were being sarky to Mick. He is a man I'll defend (and there's not many out there I would!)

No problem.

I actually see the fact we can vote in someone a bit different from the norm is an exceptional sign of maturity. His electorate saw an honest man, that thinks a bit differently to the usual and voted him in on the first count. 10 years ago, I believe that wouldn't have happened.

There's nothing wrong with electing people who are a bit different, or who challenge the norm, but to elect someone purely on those grounds is absolutely ridiculous. Surely the standard for our national legislators should be somewhat higher than "ah he's different from the rest of em"? Boyd Barrett is different; Joe Higgins is different- yet both contribute to parliamentary and civic discourse in a coherent, well thought out manner. Wallace does neither IMO. He parrots what others have said about things, and has yet to make an interesting, original point.

dan_d

hmm...so if you owe money to the banks and other individuals, it's only worthwhile declaring that you haven't enough money to pay people back if enough money can be got out of you to keep the people you owe money to happy.Or unhappy. Or something....

Bewildering. In other words it's only worthwhile declaring a person bankrupt if you make enough money out of it to pay the lawyers fees. Who then declare that the person hasn't got any money. After taking what little money they have.......

Anyone else see the problems with this system??

beeftotheheels

dan_d wrote: »

hmm...so if you owe money to the banks and other individuals, it's only worthwhile declaring that you haven't enough money to pay people back if enough money can be got out of you to keep the people you owe money to happy.Or unhappy. Or something....

Bewildering. In other words it's only worthwhile declaring a person bankrupt if you make enough money out of it to pay the lawyers fees. Who then declare that the person hasn't got any money. After taking what little money they have.......

Anyone else see the problems with this system??

That depends on what you view the purpose of bankruptcy is.

To my mind it is one of many legal tools to facilitate the collection of debts, and as such a cost benefit analysis is logical. If someone owes me €5k and I know that they only have €3k, why would I incur costs of tens of thousands to have them declared bankrupt? It would make no sense to me. I will spend as little as I can to recover the €3k (and I certainly will not spend more than €3k).

If I am owed €20m, and I have no reason to believe that my debtor is hiding assets or has any significant assets then again why would I have him declared bankrupt if it does not benefit me? If I suspect that there are assets which a trustee in bankruptcy could get their hands on then I may go down that road, but only if I think it makes sense for me as the creditor.

If you think that bankruptcy is a form of punishment for previous reckless behavior then I can understand your confusion, but it not and never was designed as such.