Promissory Notes deal with ECB will require "special financial legislation"

Kristopherus

Now that IBRC is to be liquidated, what becomes of all the court cases, present & future between the Quinns & IBRC and vice versa?

Chips Lovell

Miriam O'Callaghan just tweeted that RTE are going to start covering it at 10:30

Dave!

Jayzus, anyone watching Vincent Browne? There's all sorts of madness going on in relation to this so-called Anglo deal! Ursula Hannigan is saying that what's actually happening is that the government's negotiating strategy (or something like that) with the ECB had always been in danger of being leaked, and today it was leaked, and so this is a contingency plan that is being activated, the first move of which is to liquidate the IBRC (for "legal/fiduciary reasons").

Michael Noonan set to give a speech in the Dáil at 11pm (deferred from 10.30pm).

Dunno wtf is goin on

kippy

Dave! wrote: »

Jayzus, anyone watching Vincent Browne? There's all sorts of madness going on in relation to this so-called Anglo deal! Ursula Hannigan is saying that what's actually happening is that the government's negotiating strategy (or something like that) with the ECB had always been in danger of being leaked, and today it was leaked, and so this is a contingency plan that is being activated, the first move of which is to liquidate the IBRC (for "legal/fiduciary reasons").

Michael Noonan set to give a speech in the Dáil at 11pm (deferred from 10.30pm).

Dunno wtf is goin on

I'll tell ya whats goin on,
Serious smoke and mirrors in an attempt to force through another major decision upon this country without the knowledge and approval of the majority that will impact on generations.

123balltv

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Miriam O'Callaghan just tweeted that RTE are going to start covering it at 10:30

Dinner for schmucks is still on schmucks they are

MadsL

drkpower wrote: »

Apparently some FG rep has suggested that once the decision to liquidate IRBC became public knowledge, the Gov had to act urgently to prevent a run on the banks? Does that make sense? What bank would the news cause a run on?

Where have we heard that before?

Scortho

Really can't stand v. Browne. Will he let the people speak instead of ranting himself.

Scofflaw

dvpower wrote:

Apparently some FG rep has suggested that once the decision to liquidate IRBC became public knowledge, the Gov had to act urgently to prevent a run on the banks? Does that make sense? What bank would the news cause a run on?

Hmm. This is more likely this as the cause of the rush, although this too is guesswork:

The IBRC Bill 2013 was distributed to TDs through their pigeon holes in Leinster House shortly before 10.30pm.

According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the aim of the Bill is to wind up the IBRC, end the exposure of the State to the IBRC, help to restore the financial position of the State and help to enable the State to re-establish normalised access to the international debt markets.

It says that the Minister for Finance shall, after the legislation is passed, make a "Special Liquidation Order" to wind up IBRC and that after this Order is made, no person can apply to wind-up or appoint an examiner to any subsidiary of IBRC without the consent of the Special Liquidator.

Once someone has leaked any plan that might involve winding up IBRC, or indeed any form of resolution, it's necessary to immediately move to forestall any creditor of IBRC who thinks they might get a better deal by applying for its liquidation immediately. If you like, IBRC is being taken into protective custody, so that only the government can determine the speed and manner of its liquidation.

That makes sense if there's a deal on the cards, because any deal that involves something in particular happening to IBRC could easily be blown apart by a private creditor applying for its windup. The financial powers (aka blank cheque) provided for in the emergency legislation being "debated" tonight are presumably necessary to prevent the liquidation itself being stymied by the need to go back to the Dáil for each step of money movement - because if the liquidation order contains money movements that are (by accounting standards) charges on the public purse, the liquidation order could be ruled illegal without Dáil permission to move the money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

123balltv

Mary Lou getting hassled

Sponge Bob

The measure is to be called the "IBRC Resolutions Bill"

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The measure is to be called the "IBRC Resolutions Bill"

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Resolutions Bill, at all, at all. :rolleyes:

KevIRL

Gotta agree with this comment on the pin

I'm getting the creeping feeling that Ireland has been rushed into making a decision that will not be ratifyed for days / weeks by the ECB. Meanwile we will be forced to accept what ever ****ty watered down deal is left on the table because we have already liquidated IBRC.

Rushed middle of the night decisions on the fly do not have a good record in our Dail.

Scortho

123balltv wrote: »

Mary Lou getting hassled

Didn't Sinn Fein vote for the whole bank guarantee? Maybe Mary needs to be reminded of that???

Sponge Bob

KevIRL wrote: »

Gotta agree with this comment on the pin

Think I'll head over to the Pin to watch it for the rest of the night so I'll leave yiz to it.

Kristopherus

123balltv wrote: »

Mary Lou getting hassled

"Legalised bleedin' gangsters":D

hmmm

Scortho wrote: »

Really can't stand v. Browne. Will he let the people speak instead of ranting himself.

The trouble for Vinnie is that the discussions with the ECB are highly complex technical finance discussions, and there's no way an Irish panel show can adequately discuss something like this. It's reduced to soundbites as most of those on the various channels haven't the slightest clue what any of this means but still feel it necessary to share their useless opinions with us.

ongarite

From the Pin:

I understand that the Attorney General said/disclosed something they should not have said in the David Hall case which is up for mention tomorrow...and that was the 'leak' that allegedly triggered the Emergency Powers Act tonight. Guillotined to 1am and over to the Seanad for 10 mins or so then back to the Dáil.

Scofflaw

Looking more likely that the rush tonight is essentially to ensure private creditors can't wind Anglo/IBRC up while the government seeks to use it in a deal with the ECB.

cordially,
Scofflaw

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

Looking more likely that the rush tonight is essentially to ensure private creditors can't wind Anglo/IBRC up while the government seeks to use it in a deal with the ECB.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Could be true; but why has noone in the Dail explained the urgency in specific terms? Has noone in the Dail asked: "what happens if we do not pass this legislation tonight"?

Surely that is the question most punters out there want to know the answer to.

Scofflaw

Yup - there's the Bill, and this is the preamble:

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE WINDING UP OF IBRC AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONNECTED MATTERS.
WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY WINDING UP OF THE AFFAIRS OF IBRC TO HELP TO ADDRESS THE CONTINUING SERIOUS DISTURBANCE IN THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE;
AND WHEREAS VITAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO MAINTAIN THE FUNCTIONING OF IBRC TO SUPPORT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE STATE;
AND WHEREAS VITAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND TO MAINTAIN THE FUNCTIONING OF IBRC TO SUPPORT THE STABILITY OF THE IRISH FINANCIAL SYSTEM;
3
AND WHEREAS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FUNCTIONING OF IBRC IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE STATE OR THE STABILITY OF THE IRISH FINANCIAL SYSTEM;
AND WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY TO END THE EXPOSURE OF THE STATE AND THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND TO IBRC;
AND WHEREAS THE WINDING UP OF IBRC IS NOW NECESSARY TO HELP TO RESTORE THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE STATE AND TO HELP TO ENABLE THE STATE TO RE-ESTABLISH NORMALISED ACCESS TO THE INTERNATIONAL DEBT MARKETS;
AND WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO ENSURE THAT THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO IBRC IS, TO THE EXTENT ACHIEVABLE, RECOVERED AS FULLY AND EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE;
AND WHEREAS THE WINDING UP OF IBRC IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE DEBT OF IBRC TO THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND;
AND WHEREAS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE WINDING UP OF IBRC THE COMMON GOOD MAY REQUIRE PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS, INCLUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS, OF PERSONS;

http://namawinelake.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ibrc-bill-2013-final.pdf

That last bit will be what the hurry is - if you were an IBRC creditor, and you saw that coming, you'd get a Companies Act liquidation on the go straight away. And here's the "nobody can touch IBRC but us" bit:

After the making of the Special Liquidation Order, no person may bring a petition to wind up a subsidiary, or subsidiary undertaking, of IBRC, or a petition to have an examiner appointed to such a subsidiary or subsidiary undertaking, and the directors of such subsidiaries or subsidiary undertakings may not place such subsidiaries or subsidiary undertakings into a creditors‟ voluntary winding up without the consent of a special liquidator, which consent may be given on such terms and conditions as the special liquidator thinks fit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

drkpower wrote: »

Could be true; but why has noone in the Dail explained the urgency in specific terms? Has noone in the Dail asked: "what happens if we do not pass this legislation tonight"?

Surely that is the question most punters out there want to know the answer to.

The government is usually too busy getting things through the Dáil, and then explaining them afterwards, while the opposition is usually too busy being outraged.

I see the overall shape of the deal seems to be emerging as replacing the notes with a series of long-term bonds, maturities 25-40 years, average 27, so heavily front-loaded.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob

HERE is the Bill in full ( searchable) Google Doc.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByHQ00Fup4ifa3hwX3N0NEVXbmM/view?usp=sharing&pli=1&sle=true

Scofflaw

Jaysus:

Subject to subsection (6), with effect from the making of the Special Liquidation Order -
(a) there shall be an immediate stay on all proceedings against IBRC,
(b) no further actions or proceedings can be issued against IBRC without the consent of the Court,
(c) no actions or proceedings for the winding up of IBRC, or for the appointment of an examiner (whether interim or otherwise) or a liquidator (whether provisional or otherwise) to IBRC can be taken, issued, continued or commenced,
(d) the Minister may discharge or remove any liquidator or examiner that had been appointed to IBRC prior to the making of the Special Liquidation Order, and
(e) the Special Liquidation Order shall constitute effective and proper notice to each employee of IBRC that his or her employment with IBRC is terminated with immediate effect.

(e) there is pretty brutal. But that really is a "no touchie" order.

cordially,
Scofflaw

newsmartphone

what implications does this have on people who had mortgages with irish nationwide, that were then moved over to IBRC?

does this mean that they will be moved over to NAMA now?

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yup - there's the Bill, and this is the preamble:



http://namawinelake.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ibrc-bill-2013-final.pdf

That last bit will be what the hurry is - if you were an IBRC creditor, and you saw that coming, you'd get a Companies Act liquidation on the go straight away. And here's the "nobody can touch IBRC but us" bit:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Faster than tomorrow? And what would stop the gov from legislating tomorrow/Friday/Saturday even if a liquidation process was commenced tomorrow morning?

Gurdiev and co are speculating on VinB that the urgency is to ensure that the deal goes through before the markets open in the morning, rather then to prevent a liquidation.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if a straightforward reason was given for the undue haste. As would most citizens i suspect.

Furious_George

Scofflaw wrote: »

T
I see the overall shape of the deal seems to be emerging as replacing the notes with a series of long-term bonds, maturities 25-40 years, average 27, so heavily front-loaded.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes I noticed that too, cant wait to get into the figures and see what difference the deal will make. Also interesting to see what the government will propose to do with any savings that will accrue in the short-run.

nc6000

Boom. Jobs gone.

MadsL

the Special Liquidation Order shall constitute effective and proper notice to each employee of IBRC that his or her employment with IBRC is terminated with immediate effect.

Can a piece of legislation like this supercede existing employment legislation?

Scofflaw

drkpower wrote: »

Faster than tomorrow? And what would stop the gov from legislating tomorrow/Friday/Saturday even if a liquidation process was commenced tomorrow morning?

Gurdiev and co are speculating on VinB that the urgency is to ensure that the deal goes through before the markets open in the morning, rather then to prevent a liquidation.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if a straightforward reason was given for the undue haste. As would most citizens i suspect.

I admit that if I were in their shoes, with both the state and the governing coalition having quite so much riding on the outcome, I'd go for "better safe than sorry". After all, more time for debate, less time for debate is, in all truth, meaningless in legislative terms, since the government parties will vote for this, and they have a majority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kristopherus

Scofflaw wrote: »

Jaysus:



(e) there is pretty brutal. But that really is a "no touchie" order.

cordially,
Scofflaw

By jingo, there is a lot of tough love being dished out.

Scofflaw

MadsL wrote: »

Can a piece of legislation like this supercede existing employment legislation?

I would think so - the Oireachtas, at the end of the day, is legislatively the supreme body in the country.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chips Lovell

Scofflaw wrote: »

Once someone has leaked any plan that might involve winding up IBRC, or indeed any form of resolution, it's necessary to immediately move to forestall any creditor of IBRC who thinks they might get a better deal by applying for its liquidation immediately. If you like, IBRC is being taken into protective custody, so that only the government can determine the speed and manner of its liquidation.

That makes sense alright. So once the cat is out of the bag, they've got to act.

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

I admit that if I were in their shoes, with both the state and the governing coalition having quite so much riding on the outcome, I'd go for "better safe than sorry". After all, more time for debate, less time for debate is, in all truth, meaningless in legislative terms, since the government parties will vote for this, and they have a majority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The latter could be said for any piece of legislation; but we dont enact legislation in emergency session unless immediacy is absolutely required. And it is not yet clear why it immediacy is absolutely required. For instance, you have one theory; Gurdiev and co have another. The government have not really made it clear what the reason for the immmediate urgency is.

The better safe than sorry mantra could work both ways in respect of this matter (until clarity has been achieved).

Scofflaw

Good to see it doesn't prevent any of the Garda investigations into Anglo, anyway:

The Special Liquidation Order, and any other thing done under the Special Liquidation Order or pursuant to instructions issued or any directions given to a special liquidator pursuant to this Act -

(i) does not affect any proceedings taken, investigation undertaken, or disciplinary or enforcement action undertaken by the Bank, the Director of Public Prosecutions, An Garda Síochána, the Director of Corporate Enforcement or any regulatory authority, in respect of any matter in existence at the time the Special Liquidation Order was made or other thing was done, and

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Kristopherus wrote: »

By jingo, there is a lot of tough love being dished out.

There's more:

Limitation of power to grant injunctive relief.
8.___ (1) Where injunctive relief is sought on an interim or interlocutory basis in proceedings -
(a) to compel a special liquidator to take or refrain from taking any action, or
(b) to compel any other person to take or refrain from taking any action where the relief if granted would adversely affect a special liquidator in the discharge of his or her functions,

the Court shall have regard, in determining whether to grant such relief, to the public interest.

(2) In considering the public interest, the Court shall have regard to the purposes of this Act.

(3) Unless the Court is satisfied that not granting injunctive relief would give rise to an injustice, the Court shall not grant such relief where a remedy in damages would be available to the person who seeks that relief.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the possibility that the action in respect of which injunctive relief is sought would or might result in a person being declared bankrupt or ordered to be wound up or otherwise adversely affected is not, of itself, sufficient to establish that not granting such relief would give rise to an injustice.

So any injunctions can only be granted by the Courts having regard to the public interest and the purposes of the Bill, and, hey, sorry, but you going bankrupt doesn't constitute an 'injustice' which the Courts should remedy...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bullseye1

800 jobs lost over nite. About an hour to read a 50+ page document and then vote. This is crazy stuff.

Scofflaw

drkpower wrote: »

The latter could be said for any piece of legislation; but we dont enact legislation in emergency session unless immediacy is absolutely required. And it is not yet clear why it immediacy is absolutely required. For instance, you have one theory; Gurdiev and co have another. The government have not really made it clear what the reason for the immmediate urgency is.

The better safe than sorry mantra could work both ways in respect of this matter (until clarity has been achieved).

True - I did say this is just my working theory (aka guesswork). What's Gurdgiev's?

cordially,
Scofflaw

amtw

RTE broadcasting a News Special now, replacing Oireachtas Report.

Scortho

Was there not something about the employees being transferred to Nama?

drkpower

Scofflaw wrote: »

True - I did say this is just my working theory (aka guesswork). What's Gurdgiev's?

cordially,
Scofflaw

That the value of IRBCs assets would be potentially reduced by 7-8 billion when trading commences in the morning. Thats about as much as i understood of the argument anyway.

hatrickpatrick

Why was the Dail suspended? Or is RTE Player acting up? It says "suspended until 12AM"...

howiya

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why was the Dail suspended? Or is RTE Player acting up? It says "suspended until 12AM"...

Yup Dail is suspended till 12am to give TDs a chance to read the bill which they had not seen before the 11pm debate began

Scortho

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why was the Dail suspended? Or is RTE Player acting up? It says "suspended until 12AM"...

Give the opposition time to read the bill

Scofflaw

Scortho wrote: »

Give the opposition time to read the bill

Then they say rude things about it, then the government TDs vote it through. The the opposition spends tomorrow telling us all how awful this is, while the government tells us how necessary it was without ever quite spelling out the reasons.

cynically,
Scofflaw

Kristopherus

RTE 1 covering it now.

poeticseraphim

They are not giving time to read and understand the bill and it's implications. Half an hour or so???? Yet abortion legislation takes 20 yrs?? Hmmm???

This is the type of rushed decision making process we saw just before the Guarantee.

Why rush it??

They have been supposedly brokering a deal for months?? They did not foresee this emergency need???

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Then they say rude things about it, then the government TDs vote it through. The the opposition spends tomorrow telling us all how awful this is, while the government tells us how necessary it was without ever quite spelling out the reasons.

cynically,
Scofflaw

This of course being a consequence of the party whip system which I believe you Scoffy have defended on this forum before as a necessary evil :rolleyes:

I was just talking with my dad about this, why do we even bother having Dail debates when TDs don't vote with their own brains anyway but with whatever 'choice' has been handed down to them? We may as well just get the cabinet to debate and vote on everything, it seems that the majority of votes are utterly meaningless, like rigged football matches.

That you can so accurately predict exactly how this is going to go down is surely a very depressing blot against our allegedly democratic system of government? The same "ram through" structure which allowed this ridiculous bank to be bailed out in the first place.

Rather depressing.

stackerman

I actually feel sick !!

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good to see it doesn't prevent any of the Garda investigations into Anglo, anyway:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Here here!

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This of course being a consequence of the party whip system which I believe you Scoffy have defended on this forum before as a necessary evil :rolleyes:

I was just talking with my dad about this, why do we even bother having Dail debates when TDs don't vote with their own brains anyway but with whatever 'choice' has been handed down to them? We may as well just get the cabinet to debate and vote on everything, it seems that the majority of votes are utterly meaningless, like rigged football matches.

That you can so accurately predict exactly how this is going to go down is surely a very depressing blot against our allegedly democratic system of government? The same "ram through" structure which allowed this ridiculous bank to be bailed out in the first place.

Rather depressing.

Sorry - you believe I've defended the party whip system? Have you ever read my posts? I've defended representative democracy, but for you to believe that I've defended the whip system when on the contrary I've probably been its most consistent opponent here would make me a little glum were it not for certain mitigating circumstances.

baffled,
Scofflaw