Rally for The Quinn-were you there?

Noreen1

dj jarvis wrote: »

and all that absolves him ??? it does in it's arse - take him to the cleaners before he slime's back across to the north like his scum nephew

Now where did I suggest that that absolves him?

I just stated the facts.

dj jarvis

Noreen1 wrote: »

Now where did I suggest that that absolves him?

I just stated the facts.

come on - so your just stating facts that in fairness lean like the tower in piza one way
and this is ok , we can all argue the point - i have NO beef with you or anyone else on this issue

and you are leaving out or forgetting many point that dont make him look so innocent

care to enlighten me about the 500 million he took from the insurance company leaving it broke , endangering thousands of jobs , owing the state a poss 1.6 billion and breaking company law at the least , maybe criminal law

no amount of lob sided spin is going to convince me, or any person with a brain cell that he f2uked it up big style and HAS to be seen to pay

it is that simple for me - and this is not just for quinn and his family
i have a big list of people i want to see dangling from the lights at the dail

eth0

He didn't actually rip off the state, just a bank that the state should never have gone near and left go bankrupt. Not his fault FF decided to invest in Anglo. In fact its a good thing to rip off a bank, shower of bastards the lot of them. No such thing as a good/honest bank.

dj jarvis

eth0 wrote: »

He didn't actually rip off the state, just a bank that the state should never have gone near and left go bankrupt. Not his fault FF decided to invest in Anglo. In fact its a good thing to rip off a bank, shower of bastards the lot of them. No such thing as a good/honest bank.

all that would be grand but for the fact - we do own the banks , and what is owed to them is owed to us

does not matter really how we got here - and here we are broke ,cant afford to help the young , the old and everyone in between , quinn owes us - he was trying to hide assets he owes us , he should get what he deserves

he made a bad bad call that affected not just him or his employees but ALL of us

the idea of support for this person astounds me

Noreen1

dj jarvis wrote: »

come on - so your just stating facts that in fairness lean like the tower in piza one way
and this is ok , we can all argue the point - i have NO beef with you or anyone else on this issue

and you are leaving out or forgetting many point that dont make him look so innocent

care to enlighten me about the 500 million he took from the insurance company leaving it broke , endangering thousands of jobs , owing the state a poss 1.6 billion and breaking company law at the least , maybe criminal law

no amount of lob sided spin is going to convince me, or any person with a brain cell that he f2uked it up big style and HAS to be seen to pay

it is that simple for me - and this is not just for quinn and his family
i have a big list of people i want to see dangling from the lights at the dail

I've stated repeatedly that all those guilty of wrongdoing should be punished.
That includes Sean Quinn.

However, his wrongdoing appears to be limited to the 500million he diverted from the insurance company, and trying to conceal assets.

The lumping the rest of us with the debts of Quinn Insurance was not his doing - so would you be equally happy to see those who were responsible do jail time , too?
Because I would - but I don't believe for one second that it will ever happen.

mdoyler2

dj jarvis wrote: »

dj jarvis wrote: »

-I thinking you are missing the point; Quinn is claiming Anglo have illegally obtained ownership of some of the foreign properties; this case has still not been heard;
-the big issue here is that Anglo lent  2.3bn to prop its in own share price, which is a breach of S60 of the CA and the Market Abuse regulations;  it done this while continuously misleading the market and it's shareholders over the factual financial position of the bank. This include producing blatantly fraudulent accounts, using L&P loans as deposits, etc...  I believe it's generally accepted now that Anglo lent money to cover margin calls, when these loans where been given in order to try disguise the true use of funds Anglo fudged it's paper work, by putting the loans down as 'property' or 'working capital'. 
-Anglo are now trying to rely on the fudged security docs, and the Quinn are fighting back, rightfully in my view. As Anglo is clearly in the wrong here;
-the DoF and CB are supporting Anglo in trying to cover up what actually happened in relation to these loans. Hence the Anglo driven media war against the Quinns.

There is a lot more to this story than the QF moving assets.

dj jarvis

mdoyler2 wrote: »

-I thinking you are missing the point; Quinn is claiming Anglo have illegally obtained ownership of some of the foreign properties; this case has still not been heard;
-the big issue here is that Anglo lent 2.3bn to prop its in own share price, which is a breach of S60 of the CA and the Market Abuse regulations; it done this while continuously misleading the market and it's shareholders over the factual financial position of the bank. This include producing blatantly fraudulent accounts, using L&P loans as deposits, etc... I believe it's generally accepted now that Anglo lent money to cover margin calls, when these loans where been given in order to try disguise the true use of funds Anglo fudged it's paper work, by putting the loans down as 'property' or 'working capital'.
-Anglo are now trying to rely on the fudged security docs, and the Quinn are fighting back, rightfully in my view. As Anglo is clearly in the wrong here;
-the DoF and CB are supporting Anglo in trying to cover up what actually happened in relation to these loans. Hence the Anglo driven media war against the Quinns.

There is a lot more to this story than the QF moving assets.

all that is true , but i think you are missing the point , the Anglo he made his deal with do not exist anymore - the people who done the deal are gone , the board is gone , most of the staff are gone , the new board are not guilty of the old ones sins.

does everyone then question the independence of the judges and the rulings that found against quinn ? Anglo must have bribed the judges if that is so.

according to the law of the land he is in contempt of court , and that is for starters

how can he have supporters? - you cant pick and chose who the law applies to - this also goes for Anglo employees - if they are proven to have broke the law, then lock them up also

Noreen1

dj jarvis wrote: »

all that is true , but i think you are missing the point , the Anglo he made his deal with do not exist anymore - the people who done the deal are gone , the board is gone , most of the staff are gone , the new board are not guilty of the old ones sins.

does everyone then question the independence of the judges and the rulings that found against quinn ? Anglo must have bribed the judges if that is so.

according to the law of the land he is in contempt of court , and that is for starters

how can he have supporters? - you cant pick and chose who the law applies to - this also goes for Anglo employees - if they are proven to have broke the law, then lock them up also

But no-one claimed that they are. The old Board, however, are not dead, yet!
So mentioning Anglo, rather than IBRC, is very pertinent.

I'd like to see Sean Quinns appeal ( for want of a better word) be judged.
If he loses his case, so be it.
I don't think the asset moving can be judged fairly, until we know whether the assets were stripped illegally, or not.

If Anglo did act illegally, (and I do suspect that they broke a few laws that we don't know about) - then let the Board be punished for their wrongdoing, and let Sean Quinn be punished for using Quinn Insurance money to pay off his CFDs.

All I want is the truth, and justice - for all concerned.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Excellent explanation.

There are some things that I believe the public need to know, though.

1: Who did Sean Quinn take advice from re: CFDs?
2: Who was the other party in the CFDs?
3: Sean Quinn somehow persuaded Anglo to loan him money to buy shares? Link?

I am not defending the hiding of assets. But so many things don't fit.
For example: Sean Quinn was known as a man who didn't gamble excessive amounts. Yet he took out CFDs?
On whose advice?
Who was the other party?
Was there a link between that other party, and either the adviser, or Anglo?

Not only that - when he lost the bet - he then engaged in taking out massive loans to buy shares.
That doesn't sound like a move someone who built a massive business empire from nothing would easily consider, especially if he is known as someone who doesn't gamble anything other than modest amounts.
So, why did he? On whose advice?

One thing is certain. No businessman would either gamble on CFDs, and then take out massive loans, unless he was very sure that Anglo was financially sound. So - how did he reach that conclusion, and on whose assurances?

For me, those are the questions that need to be answered before anything resembling the full picture emerges.

As somebody else said I'd say the CFD's was probably through hedge funds or whoever deals in them things.

To a logical, unbiased mind Quinn looks silly but I think he was just as brainwashed as the bankers and politicians were, he owned Quinn Cement after all and invested heavily in property as assets of Quinn Direct, so no, he didn't see it coming.

I remember reading a piece around 07 in the Tribune about Anglos 06 record results and reading 90% of their business was property related, Anglo never thought there was a bubble, neither did Quinn and plenty thought similarly, if you looked at threads on the accomodation section that would be backed up.

I do agree that there should be a thorough investigation into the whole thing but I firmly believe Quinn was brainwashed, had a massive vested interest with the bank obviously and believed his own PR too much, bit like the top bankers in that regard. All he saw was the profits rolling in and that's all that mattered.

interesting to know

Noreen1 wrote: »

interesting to know wrote: »

Whether you have an interest or not, Sean Quinn former business magnate and billionaire has been making the media headlines constantly over the past number of years.

The most recent headline – has been the rally and show of solidarity for Quinn and his supposedly beleaguered family.
However, the key question is, do these people really understand what they are supporting?

I will attempt to explain the downfall of Sean Quinn, without sounding condescending in layman terms, so joe public can make an informed decision.

The purpose of this article is to provide the FACTS only.
(1) Long before the banking crisis. In 2002 Sean Quinn signed over the majority of his assets (including the following companies: Quinn Insurance, packaging, glass and cement) to his five children (to be divided equally among them).Whilst remaining an incredibly wealthly man, the “cash cow” highly profitable companies were under control of his children.

(2) Sean Quinn is not the victim of Anglo Irish “toxic” Bank blowing all his investment wrecklessly on crazy lending during the boom without him knowing.

(3) Mr. Quinn in 2006 only owned a small share of Anglo Irish Bank.

(4) Where things went badly wrong was when Sean Quinn entered into highly risky bets called “contracts for difference”. Without boring you with the financial terms, it quite simply means that two parties place a wager against each other. One bets that the share price of a company will rise by a certain date, the other person bets it will fall.

(5) Mr Quinn bet the price of Anglo Irish bank would rise, however as we all know the construction industry collapsed and Anglo’s share price quickly followed (quite simply because all the money it lent was into to the construction industry).

(6) Now the key thing of contracts for difference is that you don’t simply lose your initial bet. You are liable for the entire difference in share price, whether is rises or falls.

(7) For example. I place a stake that Facebook’s share will increase (go long) by a certain date. Another guys reckons it will fall (go short) by the same date. We quite simply place our bets. So I put my stake down (usually 20% of the current share price x by the number of shares I want. So I want 10 facebook shares. They are currently trading at £50 each. So that is £500 worth of shares and I need to put up 20% of this, which is £100. The other guy does the same. Facebook’s shares take a big tumble and are trading at £25 per share now. This is really bad because it means that I owe the other guy the difference between the original share price and the price the shares are when then the contract for difference is up. This means I owe the other guy 10 x £25 – my original stake of £100= which means I owe the other guy £150.

(8) Sean Quinn made this same bet with another guy on Anglo only on a much bigger scale. So you recognise the amount he owes to the other party. Anglo share price was trading at a high over €10 a share. They now are worthless.
(9) The guy he made the contract for difference with is unknown.

(10) Now this is the really juicy bit. Once the share price collapsed Mr. Quinn could have went bankrupt because quite simply he didn’t have enough money to cover his losses.

(11) But he chose not to for some really strange reason. He thought he could fix things. So he decided to buy these shares that he bet on previously (28% of Anglo in total) which he hoped would raise the price of the shares and recover some of his losses. However, as we know this was very poor advice he received as the construction industry was in no way about to recover. But the key thing here is as we know from earlier Mr.Quinn did not have the wealth himself to purchase the share as remember he signed over all his companies to children in earlier years.

(12) He somehow convinced Anglo to loan him money to buy Anglo’s own shares which is completely illegal under company law.

(13) Realising the share price was not going to recover, he knew he had to offload the shares, but also realised that he couldn’t offload all of this shares at once because speculators know when large amount of shares come under to the market all once that the company is in trouble.

(14) So he sold his shares to the following: 15% of Anglo went to the Quinn family and children and the other 10% went to the maple ten, investors and friends of Sean Quinn.

(16) However, what he did was pretty much transfer the debt (that he owed Anglo from the loan he took from them to buy the share for himself) to his children and friends and the Quinn companies which were pretty much debt free up and until now.

(17) With the downturn, the Quinn businesses such as cement and packaging were not performing as well as they were previously. The loan payments were due and the only Quinn company that could make payment was the insurance business.

(18) The family took €200 milllion from the insurance business to service the repayments for the anglo loan. However, this money was essentially from the insurance reserve, money kept in reserve to pay out claims on car accidents etc. The insurance regulator quickly recognised that if Quinn Insurance got an influx of large claims all once it didn’t have the money to pay them and stepped in and took control of the insurance arm.

(19) It meant that the Quinn family were left to service the anglo debt but were no longer in control of the cash cow insurance arm. Without this insurance company the Quinn family didn’t have a chance of repaying the anglo loans. And the rest is history. So when the Quinn family defaulted on the loan repayments Anglo took control of the remaining Quinn companies in an effort to recoup their losses.

(20) The Quinns quickly moved to put their international assets, namely a Russian hotel among other outside of the control of Anglo, in a web of complex companies.


Points to Note.
You as the taxpayer have bailed out the banks. Now the banks are trying to repay back to the taxpayer these monies through clawing back as much as possible from the sale of assets from developers and other it has loaned money originally.Anglo is doing the same with Sean Quinn and is obviously is trying to claim back more money.

Quite simply, the less assets Anglo can recover the more the taxpayer has to fork out.

So by hiding assets in complex transactions, the Quinn family is costing the taxpayer more money. They are also disputing the legality of the money Anglo lent Sean originally to buy the shares. However, if the shares had have increased instead of dropped, they wouldn’t be disputing the legality of the loans.

So the question has to be asked, will you rally to support Sean Quinn and family knowing they are hitting your back pocket as they hid assets?

Why didn’t Sean Quinn go bankrupt instead of asking his children’s companies to take over his debt. If he went bankrupt before transferring the debt (the worthless shares) to his children and their companies, the Quinn Family would still be in control on the Quinn Group as the children did not owe the debt to Anglo, Sean did.

Excellent explanation.

There are some things that I believe the public need to know, though.

1: Who did Sean Quinn take advice from re: CFDs?
2: Who was the other party in the CFDs?
3: Sean Quinn somehow persuaded Anglo to loan him money to buy shares? Link?

I am not defending the hiding of assets. But so many things don't fit.
For example: Sean Quinn was known as a man who didn't gamble excessive amounts. Yet he took out CFDs?
On whose advice?
Who was the other party?
Was there a link between that other party, and either the adviser, or Anglo?

Not only that - when he lost the bet - he then engaged in taking out massive loans to buy shares.
That doesn't sound like a move someone who built a massive business empire from nothing would easily consider, especially if he is known as someone who doesn't gamble anything other than modest amounts.
So, why did he? On whose advice?

One thing is certain. No businessman would either gamble on CFDs, and then take out massive loans, unless he was very sure that Anglo was financially sound. So - how did he reach that conclusion, and on whose assurances?

For me, those are the questions that need to be answered before anything resembling the full picture emerges.

The other party to the cfds is a closely guarded secret because they would be made a scapegoat for the downfall of Quinn and Anglo.

Insiders information suggests the other guy was John paulson. of Paulson & Co.

Look him up. He was the only guy that made billions betting against sub primes and the property sector.

He must have saw the offer Sean Quinn put on the table and bite his hand off.

tayto lover

Noreen1 wrote: »

But no-one claimed that they are. The old Board, however, are not dead, yet!
So mentioning Anglo, rather than IBRC, is very pertinent.

I'd like to see Sean Quinns appeal ( for want of a better word) be judged.
If he loses his case, so be it.
I don't think the asset moving can be judged fairly, until we know whether the assets were stripped illegally, or not.

If Anglo did act illegally, (and I do suspect that they broke a few laws that we don't know about) - then let the Board be punished for their wrongdoing, and let Sean Quinn be punished for using Quinn Insurance money to pay off his CFDs.

All I want is the truth, and justice - for all concerned.

Isn't Alan Dukes on the Board of Anglo :rolleyes:

darkhorse

K-9 wrote: »

As somebody else said I'd say the CFD's was probably through hedge funds or whoever deals in them things.

To a logical, unbiased mind Quinn looks silly but I think he was just as brainwashed as the bankers and politicians were, he owned Quinn Cement after all and invested heavily in property as assets of Quinn Direct, so no, he didn't see it coming.

I remember reading a piece around 07 in the Tribune about Anglos 06 record results and reading 90% of their business was property related, Anglo never thought there was a bubble, neither did Quinn and plenty thought similarly, if you looked at threads on the accomodation section that would be backed up.

I do agree that there should be a thorough investigation into the whole thing but I firmly believe Quinn was brainwashed, had a massive vested interest with the bank obviously and believed his own PR too much, bit like the top bankers in that regard. All he saw was the profits rolling in and that's all that mattered.

Agree with all your points. There's just one thing that I think everyone is forgetting and it is the fact that everybody from the head of anglo to the regulator to a taoiseach, On 16 January 2009, the TaoiseachBrian Cowen stated that is was "business as usual" at Anglo Irish Bank and that people should be reassured that the bank is solvent, in effect he said everything at anglo is lovely jubbly.
So, there was no reason for Sean Quinn to a)think he was going to lose and b)to think that he was going to lumber anglo/taxpayer with any losses.

yore

eth0 wrote: »

He didn't actually rip off the state, just a bank that the state should never have gone near and left go bankrupt. Not his fault FF decided to invest in Anglo. In fact its a good thing to rip off a bank, shower of bastards the lot of them. No such thing as a good/honest bank.

Wooo-hooo. right on dude. Stick it to the man. Yeah. They should rip off all the banks...oh wait, no hold on. I mean they should rip off all the Banks that neither I nor any of my friends or family have money in. Because at the end of the day, the money in the Bank is yours and mine and everyone else's...if the bank doesn't get it back,you won't either (in the absence of a govt guarantee).

It also conveniently ignores he fact that the reason the country is in such a bad hole is that the Banks lost a sh1tload of money...and your solution to fix this is to support the idea of them losing more money?

yore

Noreen1 wrote: »

Excellent explanation.

There are some things that I believe the public need to know, though.

1: Who did Sean Quinn take advice from re: CFDs?
2: Who was the other party in the CFDs?
3: Sean Quinn somehow persuaded Anglo to loan him money to buy shares? Link?

1: Maybe his postman? His barber? His bookie? It's not illegal to give bad advice and who it was irrelevant.
2: Again, irrelevant. It's a business transaction.
3: Do you really need a link that the Bank loaned him a few billion? I think that's fairly well established at this stage. Maybe you are right though and he didn't persuade them to give him the loan. Perhaps he just distracted them and took the money while they weren't looking?

Unless that person had insider knowledge of the Anglo situation then there was nothing illegal done.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I am not defending the hiding of assets. But so many things don't fit.
For example: Sean Quinn was known as a man who didn't gamble excessive amounts. Yet he took out CFDs?
On whose advice?
Who was the other party?
Was there a link between that other party, and either the adviser, or Anglo?

First rule of business - Caveat emptor.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Not only that - when he lost the bet - he then engaged in taking out massive loans to buy shares.
That doesn't sound like a move someone who built a massive business empire from nothing would easily consider, especially if he is known as someone who doesn't gamble anything other than modest amounts.
So, why did he? On whose advice?

First rule of taking advice - Caveat emptor. Why did he? Money? Maybe he thought he was being smart. Probably due to greed.
Why take out the loans to buy shares? Well he'd lost a lot on his bet and had nothing to show for it. One of the reasons for this was that his position became known. It was a vulnerability. Others in the market would attack this position. However the thinking would be that he could offset this position by actually taking that stake in the Bank, thereby in one move fending off the wolves and allowing him to profit from the share recovery on two fronts. Another would be that he needed loans to cover his margin calls. But that's like going to a bank to ask for a loan to pay off a debt at the bookies. There is nothing to back it up. It's not like buying a car where you know the person will have a car to sieze if they don't pay back the loan. He probably would not have got the loan just to meet the margin calls. However they gave him money once he would have shares as collateral.

Noreen1 wrote: »

One thing is certain. No businessman would either gamble on CFDs, and then take out massive loans, unless he was very sure that Anglo was financially sound. So - how did he reach that conclusion, and on whose assurances?

Most large businesses make substantial use of financial derivative products for hedging and investing purposes. It's not a huge leap to go from there to using them for speculative purposes. Quinn also built up a massive empire. He would have done that via massive credit from Banks. He hardly did it from the proceeds of his 5p and 10p loose change jar. Most businessmen are well used to dealing with large loans!

Noreen1 wrote: »

For me, those are the questions that need to be answered before anything resembling the full picture emerges.

We don't need to know the full picture. If there was a good reason for it all it'd have come out in interviews or court by this. If there was a real conspiracy, we'd have heard it by now.

tayto lover

Yore,

I for one would like to know the full story.
I want to see Quinn sharing a cell full of the people who caused this mess. Though i don't think they have cells that big in Mountjoy.

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

As somebody else said I'd say the CFD's was probably through hedge funds or whoever deals in them things.

To a logical, unbiased mind Quinn looks silly but I think he was just as brainwashed as the bankers and politicians were, he owned Quinn Cement after all and invested heavily in property as assets of Quinn Direct, so no, he didn't see it coming.

I remember reading a piece around 07 in the Tribune about Anglos 06 record results and reading 90% of their business was property related, Anglo never thought there was a bubble, neither did Quinn and plenty thought similarly, if you looked at threads on the accomodation section that would be backed up.

I do agree that there should be a thorough investigation into the whole thing but I firmly believe Quinn was brainwashed, had a massive vested interest with the bank obviously and believed his own PR too much, bit like the top bankers in that regard. All he saw was the profits rolling in and that's all that mattered.

Maybe he was brainwashed. I really don't know!
I just have this problem with "reasonable doubt".
I don't understand why it took so long to bring charges against Anglo, or why it's taking so long for Sean Quinns case where he's contesting the amount owed to be heard in court. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any limit to the investigation into Sean Quinn.

It seems to me that until such time as the full story emerges re: the legality (or otherwise) of the loans advanced to Sean Quinn by Anglo - and, in particular, whether Sean Quinn persuaded Anglo to advance the loan, or whether Anglo thought it would be a good idea to prop up their own share prices - (You can't say there wasn't a mutual advantage, there) - then, it is unjust to say that Sean Quinn is the only villain here.

Again and again, I read in the papers, and on this thread statements like:
"Sean Quinn somehow persuaded Anglo to advance the loan" or similar.

Now, maybe he did - but in the absence of a credible source - how do any of us know how that particular transaction came about?
That still has to be thrashed out in court, and the sooner the better, as far as I am concerned.
Now, there is the possibility, that Sean Quinns case is being held back because of the charges being brought against Seanie et al.
I don't know enough about how the courts system works to be able to form any judgement, there.
But, if it is the case that Sean Quinns case is being held back because it may prejudice hearings against the Anglo board - then shouldn't his case about moving assets also be held back?
All three cases are related, so I have serious reservations about any Judge, with the best will in the world, being able to deliver a judgement, without being able to reference the other cases. It's that darn "reasonable doubt" again!:o:D:D

I have no issue with Sean Quinn, or anyone else, being lambasted once the full facts are known.
I have a big issue with assumptions being presented as facts, until they become so engrained in the public consciousness that the truth, should it prove different to public perception, will neither be believed, nor accepted.

That scenario gives way too much advantage to some major players for my liking. It's as simple as that!

So, I'll continue to ask questions, (and, apparently, annoy a lot of people:P:D:D) in the hope that just maybe - justice will be done, and be seen to be done, and that the full truth will emerge.
After that - I'll actively join in calling for lengthy jail terms for whoever is responsible for any and all wrongdoing that the Irish taxpayer is liable for.

That seems perfectly reasonable and impartial to me.

K-9

darkhorse wrote: »

Agree with all your points. There's just one thing that I think everyone is forgetting and it is the fact that everybody from the head of anglo to the regulator to a taoiseach, On 16 January 2009, the TaoiseachBrian Cowen stated that is was "business as usual" at Anglo Irish Bank and that people should be reassured that the bank is solvent, in effect he said everything at anglo is lovely jubbly.
So, there was no reason for Sean Quinn to a)think he was going to lose and b)to think that he was going to lumber anglo/taxpayer with any losses.

IIRC that comment was because there was a fear of bank runs throughout the country, so taken in that context, well hardly a vote of confidence in Anglo as an investment!

Noreen1

yore wrote: »

1: Maybe his postman? His barber? His bookie? It's not illegal to give bad advice and who it was irrelevant.
2: Again, irrelevant. It's a business transaction.
3: Do you really need a link that the Bank loaned him a few billion? I think that's fairly well established at this stage. Maybe you are right though and he didn't persuade them to give him the loan. Perhaps he just distracted them and took the money while they weren't looking?

Unless that person had insider knowledge of the Anglo situation then there was nothing illegal done.



First rule of business - Caveat emptor.


First rule of taking advice - Caveat emptor. Why did he? Money? Maybe he thought he was being smart. Probably due to greed.
Why take out the loans to buy shares? Well he'd lost a lot on his bet and had nothing to show for it. One of the reasons for this was that his position became known. It was a vulnerability. Others in the market would attack this position. However the thinking would be that he could offset this position by actually taking that stake in the Bank, thereby in one move fending off the wolves and allowing him to profit from the share recovery on two fronts. Another would be that he needed loans to cover his margin calls. But that's like going to a bank to ask for a loan to pay off a debt at the bookies. There is nothing to back it up. It's not like buying a car where you know the person will have a car to sieze if they don't pay back the loan. He probably would not have got the loan just to meet the margin calls. However they gave him money once he would have shares as collateral.


Most large businesses make substantial use of financial derivative products for hedging and investing purposes. It's not a huge leap to go from there to using them for speculative purposes. Quinn also built up a massive empire. He would have done that via massive credit from Banks. He hardly did it from the proceeds of his 5p and 10p loose change jar. Most businessmen are well used to dealing with large loans!


We don't need to know the full picture. If there was a good reason for it all it'd have come out in interviews or court by this. If there was a real conspiracy, we'd have heard it by now.

The bolded bit is exactly why it's relevant.
Full disclosure of the facts are necessary. Then an informed judgement can be made.

It is entirely possible that Sean Quinn broke the habits of a lifetime, in this case. But we do not know that for sure. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions, imo.

I'm fully aware that all businesses take out big loans, on a regular basis.
I'm also aware of the uses of financial derivatives for hedging and investing purposes.

Most Companies, do not, however, engage in CFDs - and they most certainly do not take out loans to buy shares in the Company that lent them the money - for the very simple reason that the Bank (or Institution) cannot legally lend them money for that purpose.

Your opinions on Sean Quinns motivation may be entirely correct, for all I know. But in the absence of proof, they are just opinions - not fact!

Too often, people express opinions as facts (including our National rags that pose as newspapers) - and that does not contribute to a balanced, objective judgement.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

It seems to me that until such time as the full story emerges re: the legality (or otherwise) of the loans advanced to Sean Quinn by Anglo - and, in particular, whether Sean Quinn persuaded Anglo to advance the loan, or whether Anglo thought it would be a good idea to prop up their own share prices - (You can't say there wasn't a mutual advantage, there) - then, it is unjust to say that Sean Quinn is the only villain here.

Oh indeed I did say there was a mutual beneficial interest there, the property bubble and the share price. I would expect a lot of this stuff to come out in the Fitzpatrick case, though my suspicion is the paper trail mightn't be ideal! Which makes a fraud case difficult.

Noreen1

Noreen1 wrote: »

However, his wrongdoing appears to be limited to the 500million he diverted from the insurance company, and trying to conceal assets.

The lumping the rest of us with the debts of Quinn Insurance was not his doing - so would you be equally happy to see those who were responsible do jail time , too?

I'm not sure what you think would happen if the losses at Quinn Insurance were to be limited rather than to be covered by the levy?

There wasn't enough reserves to cover potential claims so in a liquidation claimants would only have got a fraction of what they claimed.

Equally current policy holders would be left uninsured if the company ceased trading so if you had paid your insurance for the year in full at the start of the year then you would have to go out and buy more to be insured.

No potential buyer said they were interested in taking on all the legacy business so the staff would probably have been made redundant (and given the state of the company there would have been no ex gratia payments, it would have been statutory only and claimed from the state)

Any gaps between insurance claims and payouts would probably lead to law suits against the regulators here and cost to the state.

Anyways - wrongdoing by directors of the company can leave them personally liable (I would have to check the law on this one - not certain if this is the correct section)

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

Oh indeed I did say there was a mutual beneficial interest there, the property bubble and the share price. I would expect a lot of this stuff to come out in the Fitzpatrick case, though my suspicion is the paper trail mightn't be ideal! Which makes a fraud case difficult.

Agreed.

We will probably never know the full truth, - however, a combination of any information we may glean from all three cases might just bring us a lot closer to the truth than just one third of the evidence.
Unless, as I suspect, no records were kept,:rolleyes: ala the night of the Bank guarantee - in which case - the truth will be anyones guess!:mad:

Noreen1

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure what you think would happen if the losses at Quinn Insurance were to be limited rather than to be covered by the levy?

There wasn't enough reserves to cover potential claims so in a liquidation claimants would only have got a fraction of what they claimed.

Equally current policy holders would be left uninsured if the company ceased trading so if you had paid your insurance for the year in full at the start of the year then you would have to go out and buy more to be insured.

No potential buyer said they were interested in taking on all the legacy business so the staff would probably have been made redundant (and given the state of the company there would have been no ex gratia payments, it would have been statutory only and claimed from the state)

Any gaps between insurance claims and payouts would probably lead to law suits against the regulators here and cost to the state.

Anyways - wrongdoing by directors of the company can leave them personally liable (I would have to check the law on this one - not certain if this is the correct section)

The key word there is potential.
I think it would have been time enough for the state to step in at a later date.
I could be wrong, but, weren't the reserves required raised as a result of the Bank stress tests? If so, some time to raise the reserves to the required level might have been a better option? The Company was profitable, there is a possibility that they could have traded their way out of difficulty.

Instead, the Government entered into "appease the markets at all costs - sure the public are picking up the tab!" mode - and they seriously underestimated how much they were putting the rest of us on the hook for!

The other possibility, of course, was that, in a worst case scenario, the Government could have agree to pay the gap between insurance claims and payouts. Instead, they chose to lumber the rest of us with all of the legacy payments.
Now, I don't have access to Quinn Insurance claims data - but some of a claim has to be worth less than all of the same claim.

That's not to say that Sean Quinn shouldn't be held accountable for any wrongdoing as a director. He should.
The point that I have made repeatedly in this thread, though, is not that Sean Quinn shouldn't be held accountable.
It's that every single Businessman/Woman who left the people of this state burdened with debt, should be held accountable for their part in it.

I'd love to see certain Politicians in Court, too - but, afaik, they can't be prosecuted for decisions they take relating to Dail business - now matter how reckless those decisions may be!:mad::mad:
Now, there's a change in the law I'd love to see! Oh, the possibilities!

mdoyler2

dj jarvis wrote: »

[
all that is true , but i think you are missing the point , the Anglo he made his deal with do not exist anymore - the people who done the deal are gone , the board is gone , most of the staff are gone , the new board are not guilty of the old ones sins.

does everyone then question the independence of the judges and the rulings that found against quinn ? Anglo must have bribed the judges if that is so.

according to the law of the land he is in contempt of court , and that is for starters

how can he have supporters? - you cant pick and chose who the law applies to - this also goes for Anglo employees - if they are proven to have broke the law, then lock them up also

-just because the old board is gone doesn't mean the new board can try hide what activity Anglo was involved in. They must face up to the fact that Anglo broke the law, they can't just ignore that. They are trying to stand over blatantly fraudulent loans.
-the former attonery general at the time of bank guarantee (here was at the infamous meeting) and nationalisation, Paul Gallagher is now Anglos lead Counsel, claiming hundreds of thousands in fees from the Anglo/State; trying to cover up the truth.
-Contempt of Court has nothing to do with S60 and/or the Market Abuse regulations. Look at the bigger picture.
-Anglo are spending a fortune trying to cover up Market Abuse and s60 breaches. In their last set of accounts paid 5.4 million per week (290m per year) in professional fees and wages. Its an absoulte disgrace. Many of the senior staff in Anglo throughout 2007/2008; are still employed now, I believe over 120 people in Anglo are on over 100k per year;
-

tayto lover

K-9 wrote: »

Oh indeed I did say there was a mutual beneficial interest there, the property bubble and the share price. I would expect a lot of this stuff to come out in the Fitzpatrick case, though my suspicion is the paper trail mightn't be ideal! Which makes a fraud case difficult.

Added to the fact that it took far too long for the Garda investigation to even begin. I often wondered why? Was it to give them time to do away with incriminating documents and get their stories in order? They had some powerful people on their Board and their boss played golf with the Taoiseach who controls the Justice Dept.
Now if Anglo was a Credit Union down the country do you think the investigation would have taken as long to begin?

yore

Noreen1 wrote: »

The bolded bit is exactly why it's relevant.
Full disclosure of the facts are necessary. Then an informed judgement can be made.

Sorry, that is not logical. It is a non-sequitur. Quinn made a gamble. He took out loans to try to dig himself out of the gamble. Whether the person on the other side was breaking the law in some way is irrelevant to the people Quinn owes that money too. Or if some eejit gave him bad advice,and he believed it, it does not mean he doesn't have to pay it back. If the person on the other side acted illegally or with illegal (probably very unlikely) does not absolve him from paying back the loan. If I take a loan to bet you 100k that Katie Taylor will win gold tomorrow, and you take the other side of that bet, but you have inside information that she fell down the stairs and hurt her wrist tonight, I can't go back to the Bank and say "Ah sure I don't have to pay you back now because Noreen1 cheated". That is of no interest to the Bank. They will want their money back. If it can be proven that you somehow cheated then it is up to me to recover the money from you.
What if your friend asks you for a lend of a grand. Says he needs it urgently and will pay it back next week. You give him the money but then he comes back and confesses "I'm broke. Paddy in the pub gave me a hot tip for the bookies the other night and I put all my money on it. It turns out Paddy knows nothing about horses but I believed him". Would you then say "ah sure you got advice from an idiot, so you shouldn't have to pay me back"? If it turned out that Paddy's brother was the bookie, you'd still be entitled to your money back wouldn't you?

Noreen1 wrote: »

It is entirely possible that Sean Quinn broke the habits of a lifetime, in this case. But we do not know that for sure. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to ask questions, imo.

I'm fully aware that all businesses take out big loans, on a regular basis.
I'm also aware of the uses of financial derivatives for hedging and investing purposes.

Most Companies, do not, however, engage in CFDs - and they most certainly do not take out loans to buy shares in the Company that lent them the money - for the very simple reason that the Bank (or Institution) cannot legally lend them money for that purpose.

Sorry. You seem to have inside information on what Mr. Quinn's "habits of a lifetime" and also about "most companies". Quinn took these contracts, and bought shares, in a personal capacity. Perhaps I did not make it clear in my initial response but I think I stated reasonably clearly that as a businessman in charge of a huge company (which he was before he signed it over), he would surely have been somewhat familiar with the existence of different types of financial products, probably mainly for hedging purposes. And it would be only a series of small steps to get from there to using other types for speculative purposes. One of the reasons for this is that he would have advisers. Those advisers would also be able to give him information about the type of products out there.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Your opinions on Sean Quinns motivation may be entirely correct, for all I know. But in the absence of proof, they are just opinions - not fact!

Too often, people express opinions as facts (including our National rags that pose as newspapers) - and that does not contribute to a balanced, objective judgement.

The facts are that he owes money. The facts are that he has not paid it back. The facts are that he moved to take assets beyond the reach of those to whom they now rightfully belonged.
His motivation is irrelevant. Maybe he wanted to win big and give all the money to kids with cancer. It makes no difference.
By all means feel sorry for the man if he was duped or made a mistake. But don't hand him a few billion on a plate because you feel sorry for him. There are far more deserving potential recipients of those billions than Mr. Quinn

yore

tayto lover wrote: »

Yore,

I for one would like to know the full story.
I want to see Quinn sharing a cell full of the people who caused this mess. Though i don't think they have cells that big in Mountjoy.

What could the full story be? Here are some scenarios:
1) Someone who did a bit more homework that Quinn decided the Bank was way overvalued and took the other side of Quinns CFDs. -> It is not illegal to make money from having a better insight.
2) Quinn got bad advice. -> It's not illegal to be a bad adviser or even incompetent or an idiot.
3) Someone with illegal information tricked Quinn -> That's between Quinn and that person. It doesn't absolve him from his debts.
If there were other people in the wrong, then they should be brought to justice too. But that does not lessens Quinn's responsibility. he put his name to the paper.

Noreen1

yore wrote: »

Sorry, that is not logical. It is a non-sequitur. Quinn made a gamble. He took out loans to try to dig himself out of the gamble. Whether the person on the other side was breaking the law in some way is irrelevant to the people Quinn owes that money too. Or if some eejit gave him bad advice,and he believed it, it does not mean he doesn't have to pay it back. If the person on the other side acted illegally or with illegal (probably very unlikely) does not absolve him from paying back the loan. If I take a loan to bet you 100k that Katie Taylor will win gold tomorrow, and you take the other side of that bet, but you have inside information that she fell down the stairs and hurt her wrist tonight, I can't go back to the Bank and say "Ah sure I don't have to pay you back now because Noreen1 cheated". That is of no interest to the Bank. They will want their money back. If it can be proven that you somehow cheated then it is up to me to recover the money from you.
What if your friend asks you for a lend of a grand. Says he needs it urgently and will pay it back next week. You give him the money but then he comes back and confesses "I'm broke. Paddy in the pub gave me a hot tip for the bookies the other night and I put all my money on it. It turns out Paddy knows nothing about horses but I believed him". Would you then say "ah sure you got advice from an idiot, so you shouldn't have to pay me back"? If it turned out that Paddy's brother was the bookie, you'd still be entitled to your money back wouldn't you?

It's actually perfectly logical to those who want the truth, rather than being happy with one side of a story.

It's even more logical if, say, someone in Anglo offered the loan - or someone with inside knowledge was the other party in the CFDs. AFAIK, that's called insider trading, and it's not just cheating - it's illegal.
If he took advice from an eejit, or Paddy in the pub - that's an entirely different story. But as you say, he would have had advisors - so what persuaded them that A: The CFD was a good idea, and B: It was acceptable to take out huge loans to invest in the same Company he borrowed from?
The truth is, no reputable advisor would give that advice. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if they did, they would be liable to prosecution.

yore wrote: »

Sorry. You seem to have inside information on what Mr. Quinn's "habits of a lifetime" and also about "most companies". Quinn took these contracts, and bought shares, in a personal capacity. Perhaps I did not make it clear in my initial response but I think I stated reasonably clearly that as a businessman in charge of a huge company (which he was before he signed it over), he would surely have been somewhat familiar with the existence of different types of financial products, probably mainly for hedging purposes. And it would be only a series of small steps to get from there to using other types for speculative purposes. One of the reasons for this is that he would have advisers. Those advisers would also be able to give him information about the type of products out there.

I'd say the dogs on the street have read about Sean Quinns modest game of cards in his local pub, numerous times in the media. I certainly have!
I've also worked with a substantial no. of Companies in a Consultancy capacity - and, believe me, CFDs, and illegal loans weren't on their agenda - at all! Cost savings, production/systems efficiency, H.R, and Industrial Relations were of far greater interest to these people.
So, yeah - most Companies do not engage in CFDs - unless they are financial institutions of one type or another, or engaged in International trade.

yore wrote: »

The facts are that he owes money. The facts are that he has not paid it back. The facts are that he moved to take assets beyond the reach of those to whom they now rightfully belonged.
His motivation is irrelevant. Maybe he wanted to win big and give all the money to kids with cancer. It makes no difference.
By all means feel sorry for the man if he was duped or made a mistake. But don't hand him a few billion on a plate because you feel sorry for him. There are far more deserving potential recipients of those billions than Mr. Quinn

The facts are that he owes a disputed amount of money.
Until such time as his case comes to Court, none of us know how much he owes.
It may well be a couple of Billion - but it's also possible that it will turn out to be a couple of hundred million, which may then be increased to take account of the €1.6Bn that Quinn Insurance is potentially liable for - if Sean Quinn is charged under Company law.
Therefore, it's impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, just what assets Anglo had a right to seize - or to whom they now rightfully belonged. Note, I said "rightfully" belonged - not legally belonged.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
I would like to be able to say, with certainty - that the legal owners of the assets are also the rightful owners of the assets.
Unfortunately, I'm not at all certain of that! In fact, until Sean Quinns case is heard, I don't believe that anyone with an open mind, can say that.

As to feeling sorry for Sean Quinn? I'll make my mind up when I know all the facts, not before then!

yore

Noreen1 wrote: »

It's actually perfectly logical to those who want the truth, rather than being happy with one side of a story.

It's even more logical if, say, someone in Anglo offered the loan - or someone with inside knowledge was the other party in the CFDs. AFAIK, that's called insider trading, and it's not just cheating - it's illegal.
If he took advice from an eejit, or Paddy in the pub - that's an entirely different story. But as you say, he would have had advisors - so what persuaded them that A: The CFD was a good idea, and B: It was acceptable to take out huge loans to invest in the same Company he borrowed from?
The truth is, no reputable advisor would give that advice. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if they did, they would be liable to prosecution.

Quinn definitely got the money from Anglo; there is no disputing that regardless of the arguments whether he owes it now. The steps that preceded him getting into this position do not change that fact. He will still owe the money. If he was duped, then people will have more sympathy for him. But the issue isn't about whether he is a bad man. the issue is that he owes the money.

And yes insider trading is illegal. If someone did that and it was proven then they would be in a lot of trouble. but as I said in the last post, it doesn't change the fact that Quinn owes the money to Anglo. What it would mean is that Quinn would have to sue the counterparty to get his money back, He'd be liable for his own loan regardless of whether he got the money back himself.

What qualifies as an adviser? From memory, wasn't the nephew who is on the run qualified as an accountant. Didn't he qualify, feck off to Australia for a year or something and then returned and got a job in his Uncles company and within a short space of time was managing a large property portfolio?

If it were allowed to just not pay a debt off because of bad advice then there would be no business done. I could employ some junkie as my adviser and give him a grand or two. I then take out some massive loans for a series of risky investments. The ones that win, I keep the money. The ones that lose, I don't have to repay because my "adviser" told me to do it. Does that sound like a good system to you? It's an extreme extension and application of the logic that says Quinn wouldn't be liable if he got, and took, bad advice.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'd say the dogs on the street have read about Sean Quinns modest game of cards in his local pub, numerous times in the media. I certainly have!
I've also worked with a substantial no. of Companies in a Consultancy capacity - and, believe me, CFDs, and illegal loans weren't on their agenda - at all! Cost savings, production/systems efficiency, H.R, and Industrial Relations were of far greater interest to these people.
So, yeah - most Companies do not engage in CFDs - unless they are financial institutions of one type or another, or engaged in International trade.

That may be an urban legend. Even if not, he liked to play cards with his friends. What does that prove? do you think they'd play with him if he wanted a starting bet of 1000 euro? What difference to him was winning 1000 euro vs 1 euro when he was a multi billionaire. Alternatively....maybe he was just very tight and not very good at cards and didn't want to lose money :-)

I never said CFD are used by a lot of businesses. You would not use them for hedging unless you wanted to offset a position you already held in stock. most non-financial companies don't really hold investments that would be classified as "trading". And I already pointed out that Quinn built up his exposure, at least initially, in a personal capacity. when the sh1t hit the fan later on, he went back and organised company assets to be as collateral for loans. As you are consultant, what are your impressions of the corporate governance of the firm? One that allowed Quinn to move a few hundred million from the insurance arm to cover his margin calls? One that allowed the assets of the firm to be pledged as collateral for loans by the father of the then owners of the firm.

Noreen1 wrote: »

The facts are that he owes a disputed amount of money.
Until such time as his case comes to Court, none of us know how much he owes.
It may well be a couple of Billion - but it's also possible that it will turn out to be a couple of hundred million, which may then be increased to take account of the €1.6Bn that Quinn Insurance is potentially liable for - if Sean Quinn is charged under Company law.
Therefore, it's impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, just what assets Anglo had a right to seize - or to whom they now rightfully belonged. Note, I said "rightfully" belonged - not legally belonged.
And there lies the crux of the matter.
I would like to be able to say, with certainty - that the legal owners of the assets are also the rightful owners of the assets.
Unfortunately, I'm not at all certain of that! In fact, until Sean Quinns case is heard, I don't believe that anyone with an open mind, can say that.

As to feeling sorry for Sean Quinn? I'll make my mind up when I know all the facts, not before then!

He got the few billion from Anglo. His contention is that most of the loan was illegal. Whether or not it was illegal probably does not affect the status of the assets pledged against it. If it did, then suppose I was able to somehow get an enormous loan from a Bank under dubious circumstances. Then I could go into court the next day and make them declare that the loan was illegal and i could keep all the money and not pay a penny back. I am guessing that I would have to pay back what i could of the loan using my assets and then after that it would have to be written off.

I will try to give an analogy. Suppose an young fella from a wealthy family goes into the bank with his wealthy father to get a mortgage for a new house. He has some faked documents saying he earns 60k a year working as a consultant when in reality he earns just above minimum wage working in Tescos. The Father says "I'm a wealthy businessman and I will go guarantor on the loan. Here are some of my assets as collateral". The father is well known to the bank and the son gets the loan.
Suddenly there is a property crash. Son loses his job. He decides he doesn't want a negative equity house. The Bank try to come after the father who guaranteed the loans. The father says "ah yes, but the loan was illegal because you should never have given my son a loan in the first place". What do you think happens in that scenario? If the bank had given the son his loan on his own then if he could prove they gave it illegally they'd just have to sieze the house and swallow the loss. This is like what happened to Quinn. he is saying that as the loans were illegal, he can not be held responsible for them. unfortunately for him, The Quinn company had put up security for him.


This seems to be the scenario

1) Quinn starts to build up massive exposure via CFDs
2) They start to lose money. They are highly leveraged and losses soon build
3) Unable to meet margin calls, he had two choices. A) Declare bankruptcy or get money from somewhere. "A" would have been very embarrassing for the ex-richest man in Ireland. He went with "B" which was to illegally take money, i presume as a "loan", from his old insurance company which was now owned by his children.
4) Losses continued to mount. Word got out that he held this position. The management of the Bank brought him in to confirm the rumours.
5) Knowing that something like this would leave the Bank share price open to attack by vultures in the market, they concocted an illegal plan that would allow Quinn to convert his exposure into actual shares. The thinking might have been that it would put a halt to the share price slide. This involved giving Quinn a loan. The "Maple 10" were assembled to allow Quinn to offload these shares. At this stage he could have still just declared himself bankrupt but he would lose all his personal wealth and status,. His old company would also have to immediately write off the couple of hundred million "loan" which would have set off warning bells. If the gamble worked he would become an even wealthier man than he was before.
6) The Quinn group, at some disputed stage, signed over assets as collateral for the loans
7) The sh1t hit the fan. Anglo went to the wall. The regulators moved in on the insurance arm of his business when they uncovered the shennanigans.
8) The Quinn group tried to move the pledged assets out of the reach of the Bank. Buildings worth over 100m were exchanged for laptops. Massive shopping centre was signed over to some railway worker. The children, whom Quinn has been wailing were "put on the dole"by the actions of the regulator in taking over Quinn Insurance were getting after tax payments worth hundreds of thousands of Euro from Russian companies. His new daughter in law managed to find some time outside of her busy working week in a car showroom to do enough work for the same Russian companies to take home over 6k euro a week after tax. That little sideline must have at least kept her in nice biscuits for her tea breaks in the garage.

tayto lover

yore wrote: »

What could the full story be? Here are some scenarios:
1) Someone who did a bit more homework that Quinn decided the Bank was way overvalued and took the other side of Quinns CFDs. -> It is not illegal to make money from having a better insight.
2) Quinn got bad advice. -> It's not illegal to be a bad adviser or even incompetent or an idiot.
3) Someone with illegal information tricked Quinn -> That's between Quinn and that person. It doesn't absolve him from his debts.
If there were other people in the wrong, then they should be brought to justice too. But that does not lessens Quinn's responsibility. he put his name to the paper.

I don't give a damn about Quinn. Let him rot in jail for his greed. BUT I want them all in jail, right to the top if they had involvement in ruining the economy. We got the bill for their greed and skulduggery.

Noreen1

yore wrote: »

Quinn definitely got the money from Anglo; there is no disputing that regardless of the arguments whether he owes it now. The steps that preceded him getting into this position do not change that fact. He will still owe the money. If he was duped, then people will have more sympathy for him. But the issue isn't about whether he is a bad man. the issue is that he owes the money.

And yes insider trading is illegal. If someone did that and it was proven then they would be in a lot of trouble. but as I said in the last post, it doesn't change the fact that Quinn owes the money to Anglo. What it would mean is that Quinn would have to sue the counterparty to get his money back, He'd be liable for his own loan regardless of whether he got the money back himself.

What qualifies as an adviser? From memory, wasn't the nephew who is on the run qualified as an accountant. Didn't he qualify, feck off to Australia for a year or something and then returned and got a job in his Uncles company and within a short space of time was managing a large property portfolio?

If it were allowed to just not pay a debt off because of bad advice then there would be no business done. I could employ some junkie as my adviser and give him a grand or two. I then take out some massive loans for a series of risky investments. The ones that win, I keep the money. The ones that lose, I don't have to repay because my "adviser" told me to do it. Does that sound like a good system to you? It's an extreme extension and application of the logic that says Quinn wouldn't be liable if he got, and took, bad advice.


That may be an urban legend. Even if not, he liked to play cards with his friends. What does that prove? do you think they'd play with him if he wanted a starting bet of 1000 euro? What difference to him was winning 1000 euro vs 1 euro when he was a multi billionaire. Alternatively....maybe he was just very tight and not very good at cards and didn't want to lose money :-)

I never said CFD are used by a lot of businesses. You would not use them for hedging unless you wanted to offset a position you already held in stock. most non-financial companies don't really hold investments that would be classified as "trading". And I already pointed out that Quinn built up his exposure, at least initially, in a personal capacity. when the sh1t hit the fan later on, he went back and organised company assets to be as collateral for loans. As you are consultant, what are your impressions of the corporate governance of the firm? One that allowed Quinn to move a few hundred million from the insurance arm to cover his margin calls? One that allowed the assets of the firm to be pledged as collateral for loans by the father of the then owners of the firm.


He got the few billion from Anglo. His contention is that most of the loan was illegal. Whether or not it was illegal
probably does not affect the status of the assets pledged against it. If it did, then suppose I was able to somehow get an enormous loan from a Bank under dubious circumstances. Then I could go into court the next day and make them declare that the loan was illegal and i could keep all the money and not pay a penny back. I am guessing that I would have to pay back what i could of the loan using my assets and then after that it would have to be written off.

I will try to give an analogy. Suppose an young fella from a wealthy family goes into the bank with his wealthy father to get a mortgage for a new house. He has some faked documents saying he earns 60k a year working as a consultant when in reality he earns just above minimum wage working in Tescos. The Father says "I'm a wealthy businessman and I will go guarantor on the loan. Here are some of my assets as collateral". The father is well known to the bank and the son gets the loan.
Suddenly there is a property crash. Son loses his job. He decides he doesn't want a negative equity house. The Bank try to come after the father who guaranteed the loans. The father says "ah yes, but the loan was illegal because you should never have given my son a loan in the first place". What do you think happens in that scenario? If the bank had given the son his loan on his own then if he could prove they gave it illegally they'd just have to sieze the house and swallow the loss. This is like what happened to Quinn. he is saying that as the loans were illegal, he can not be held responsible for them. unfortunately for him, The Quinn company had put up security for him.


This seems to be the scenario

1) Quinn starts to build up massive exposure via CFDs
2) They start to lose money. They are highly leveraged and losses soon build
3) Unable to meet margin calls, he had two choices. A) Declare bankruptcy or get money from somewhere. "A" would have been very embarrassing for the ex-richest man in Ireland. He went with "B" which was to illegally take money, i presume as a "loan", from his old insurance company which was now owned by his children.
4) Losses continued to mount. Word got out that he held this position. The management of the Bank brought him in to confirm the rumours.
5) Knowing that something like this would leave the Bank share price open to attack by vultures in the market, they concocted an illegal plan that would allow Quinn to convert his exposure into actual shares. The thinking might have been that it would put a halt to the share price slide. This involved giving Quinn a loan. The "Maple 10" were assembled to allow Quinn to offload these shares. At this stage he could have still just declared himself bankrupt but he would lose all his personal wealth and status,. His old company would also have to immediately write off the couple of hundred million "loan" which would have set off warning bells. If the gamble worked he would become an even wealthier man than he was before.
6) The Quinn group, at some disputed stage, signed over assets as collateral for the loans
7) The sh1t hit the fan. Anglo went to the wall. The regulators moved in on the insurance arm of his business when they uncovered the shennanigans.
8) The Quinn group tried to move the pledged assets out of the reach of the Bank. Buildings worth over 100m were exchanged for laptops. Massive shopping centre was signed over to some railway worker. The children, whom Quinn has been wailing were "put on the dole"by the actions of the regulator in taking over Quinn Insurance were getting after tax payments worth hundreds of thousands of Euro from Russian companies. His new daughter in law managed to find some time outside of her busy working week in a car showroom to do enough work for the same Russian companies to take home over 6k euro a week after tax. That little sideline must have at least kept her in nice biscuits for her tea breaks in the garage.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I say?

1: It is for the Court to decide how the legality (or otherwise) of the loan affects the status of the assets pledged against it.
Until the Court rules, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can state with any degree of certainty what assets Anglo had a right to seize.
I've made that point several times, now.
"Probably" isn't acceptable when judging guilt, or innocence.

2: In your analogy, the son is guilty of fraud by overstating his income.
The wealthy businessman may be guilty of aiding and abetting his son.
That is not remotely similar to a Bank knowingly advancing loans so that a customer can buy shares. That is illegal.

Let me spell it out.
If the son, and father, in your analogy, are guilty of obtaining a loan through false representation, then the Bank hasn't done anything illegal - therefore, the son is liable for his loan, and his father, as guarantor, cannot refuse to pay.
In addition, the son is guilty of a criminal offence (and possibly the father, too, depending on his knowledge of the situation - I haven't stood as guarantor for anyone in that situation, so I'm not familiar with the process).

In the Quinn vs. Anglo situation, the Court must decide whether Anglo advanced the loan illegally.
If they did - then Quinn is not liable for the loan - unless there are circumstances of which we are not aware - such as Quinn giving the Bank false information, for instance.
It is, of course, also possible that both parties are guilty of an offence. We just don't know, yet.

Unfortunately for Joe Public - we are liable for repaying the money - irrespective of who committed what offence.
Therefore, imo, we are entitled to know the details of how we became liable, and who is responsible, and to what degree.

That is what I want to find out. The unvarnished truth, no more, no less! Frankly, I cannot see why you have a problem with that - or the fact that I question inaccuracies that are presented as fact, when we are not yet aware of what the actual facts are.