Anglo Trial!

Peterdalkey

D&O insurance info http://www.agcs.allianz.com/insights/white-papers-and-case-studies/introduction-to-do-insurance/

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

D&O insurance info http://www.agcs.allianz.com/insights/white-papers-and-case-studies/introduction-to-do-insurance/
Would disagree on D&O cover for misconduct!! then add in the fact that they had legal counsel to confirm actions were legal. Insurance co is out on a very insecure limb in my opinion!

Thanks for the link. From page 6 of the Allianz brochure:
A D&O policy does not cover fraudulent, criminal or
intentional non-compliant acts.* Nevertheless, innocent
directors remain fully covered if they are co-defendants, even if
the acts of their colleagues were intentional or fraudulent.
*my underlining
So my comments would appear to be correct.

Re your comment on legal advice, yes, it was obtained, but only after the event (Maple 10 loans) , the trial judge made a comment to that effect.

Peterdalkey

my recollection of the evidence was that tacit approval ( no objection) from the regulator and legal advice had been obtained prior to the Maple 10 signing up!!
If the directors believed that they were acting legally, having taken specific legal advice, in civil law the insurance company would have no right to repudiation, in my view! Clearly we are not privy to the level and scope of cover in place, but it would be very safe to assume there was significant cover.

Now the warehousing of loans during audit periods is another kettle of fish altogether!!

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

my recollection of the evidence was that tacit approval ( no objection) from the regulator and legal advice had been obtained prior to the Maple 10 signing up!!
If the directors believed that they were acting legally, having taken specific legal advice, in civil law the insurance company would have no right to repudiation, in my view! Clearly we are not privy to the level and scope of cover in place, but it would be very safe to assume there was significant cover.

Just because the Regulator’s office was aware of what was going on does not make it legal, as the State was happy to issue proceedings against SF and the others for illegality. One of the reasons the other 2 went down was because their defence failed to prove that there was prior legal advice –the trial judge said that the small legal bill (of <5k euro from memory) for events immediately prior to the loan could not be attributed to legal advice on such a complex matter. I concur with m’lud, MOPs never did ‘cheap’ and 5k would get you nowhere with any of the big firms!
However, we are in the realms of speculation on the D&O cover. No doubt there was significant cover in place, but one never knows how good a policy is until it is tested! Another possibility is that there was a falling out over the insurers proposed legal team (the insurers nominate the legal team ‘cos they foot the bill). If SF was not happy with the insurer’s team and vice-a-versa, SF would be on his own, hence the dig-out.

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Now the warehousing of loans during audit periods is another kettle of fish altogether!!

When the warehousing case comes on Neary will get a tough time, deservedly, as it seems to be common knowledge that he was up to his neck in that episode. It will be interesting to see if McAteer will get the knife in as pay-back. Neary has a history of ‘forgetting’ - ‘cannot remember’ - ‘no recollection,’ etc., so I expect he will be on the receiving end of some tough questions and remarks. If the ODCE had any cojones they would institute proceedings against Neary (and the directors of ALL the banks in the 2004-2007 period) as being “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company”. It would be one for the books to see a former regulator being restricted!

Peterdalkey

I must again disagree! The judge actually held that the legal advice was inadmissible on the basis that it was a variance with the law, incorrect. ignorance etc is no defence..... nothing to do with the fees charged!

Neary was never governed by company law, so the ODCE can whistle Dixie in his case. Personal responsibility or accountability has been airbrushed out of existence when it comes to elected and permanent government officials . PPARS, decentralisation, eVoting, Poolbeg Incinerator etc etc etc are just a few examples. I would love to see Neary nailed for his dereliction of fiduciary duty to the citizenry of Ireland but when you fcuk up as a politician or civil/public servant, the only sanction is to be given a nice big lump sum, golden pension and if you keep your trap shut, down the road we will give you a new job looking after water meters or the like. You can of course keep your lump sum and pension and if you do a "good job" we will give you anudder wun!! and de chance of a special bonus!!

pedroeibar1

Peterdalkey wrote: »

I must again disagree! The judge actually held that the legal advice was inadmissible on the basis that it was a variance with the law, incorrect. ignorance etc is no defence..... nothing to do with the fees charged!

Neary was never governed by company law, so the ODCE can whistle Dixie in his case.

I still disagree and not just because I like dissension!

We are talking hypothetical.
Nothing of note will happen in Ireland because we are ruled by a bunch of teachers who have absolutely no experience of business whatsoever...... aided and abetted by a mediocre, pedestrian press corps (business commentators are with a few exceptions even worse) that is happy to unquestioningly trot out the party line of guff. If they had any understanding of what was happening one of the gobdaws would have jumped on the bandwagon of how ‘effective’ Ireland and ‘probity’ were and underlined the fact that in the UK Barclays Bank did the very same thing with certain Middle Eastern people to buoy up its own share price. (Bruxelles and HMG have remained very quiet on that!)Nor is it a crime in the US, which is why Drummer is sitting comfortably on his padded ar$e and not facing extradition.

So, if we had a just world, (dream on!) look at it this way ...... Neary (where does it say he is exempt from Company Law?) will be dragged into the case on warehousing the cash to doctor-up Anglo’s balance sheet. Assuming that his memory does not totally fail him, (and even if it does) his actions, or lack of them, will be deemed by the judge to be inappropriate. I mean fair play to you Neary, it obviously has to be inappropriate! After that, two things can happen: (a) The ODCE has the right to apply to the High Court for the examination of persons believed to be in possession of information relating to the affairs of a failed company (s.245 Companies Act 1963, as amended by s.44 Company Law Enforcement Act 2001) so if he had cojones (as mentioned in my earlier post) the ODCE would get off his ass and earn his salt. If Neary does not give satisfactory answers (and ‘forgetting’ is not a defence) there is an application to have him restricted.
Additionally
(b) the findings/report of the so-called ‘Banking Enquiry’ will no doubt be critical of Neary and as that report is one of inspectors appointed by the Minister, there are sufficient grounds for the ODCE to apply for a restriction order on the basis that Neary’s conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. (Companies Act 1990 S.160(2) e) the court may, of its own motion, or as a result of the application, make a disqualification order against such a person for such period as it sees fit.)

Would it get us our money back? NO.
Would it kick some of the greedy coterie in a delicate place? YES
Would it affect Neary and his pension? NO
Would it make me and 1,000's of others feel happy? YES.
Does the ODCE have any courage? NO
(Does giving yourself a $1millon watch amount to malfeasance or justify an ODCE action? Has that happened? )

Would we ever see any of this ever happen? Will we f###!

terryhobdell

We would all like to see the whole lot of incompetent self serving bastards answer for their actions but I doubt our legal system is fit for purpose but fingers Drumm, Quinn and Fitzpatrick are something the system should cope with.

aido79

Maybe a little off topic here but did these loans actually achieve anything or would the result have been the same without them?

Gloomtastic!

aido79 wrote: »

Maybe a little off topic here but did these loans actually achieve anything or would the result have been the same without them?

Share price would have tanked regardless. However, if Sean Quinn hadn't of gambled on CFD's in Anglo, then Anglo would not have been included in the bank guarantee.

I believe the biggest thing this whole debacle achieved was to prove one of the laws of business - no matter if you are one of the richest men in Europe - 'You're only ever two mistakes from going under!'

terryhobdell

Slowly the wheel turns it looks initially like Drumm is in deep **** in States and will end up in trailer park and then be extradited. Fitzpatricks busy team of lawyers funded by the tooth fairies have got a delay in his hiding loans trial but it's not too long!! This is the one they should have started with straighttforward did you mislead? Answer Yes. As the Sage of Dalkey has said slowly slowly catchee monkey.

pedroeibar1

I'm not going to comment on the current case but it is worthwhile to give this bit of history a bump.

Gloomtastic!

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on the current case but it is worthwhile to give this bit of history a bump.

Four years later, I’ve no interest in the Drumm case. The guy, along with a multitude of others, is/was guilty as sin but Ireland has been proven to be the land of zero-accountability so I’m not going to waste any more energy hoping for a different outcome.

pedroeibar1

It is now four and a half years since my comment "Fair play to you, Willie!" here

That comment is now firmly in the public domain (see Sarah-Jane Murphy’s article, Page 8, today’s Sunday Times) but the poor quality of mainstream Irish journalism largely has missed both it and the complicit 'green jersey' role of the Regulator. Drumm deservedly is in jail, but the culprits (with no memory!) in the regulator's office have not only got off scot free, but also with full pensions. Let’s now wait and see what the professional bodies do to their less than watchful audit partners and seniors!