Dennis O’ Brien got an interest rate of 1.25%

Eugene Norman

Graham wrote: »

Most people haven't a clue about that distinction. 'The banks' are lumped in with 'The Insurance Companies', 'The Government', 'The Troika' and 'The Germans'.

No, seriously -- most people know the distinction between grandpa shareholder and the Banks. It's perfectly correct usage in modern capitalism to blame management of a entity for something, while understanding the owners are a diverse group of shareholders.

Chips Lovell

Anyone trying to get their head around this one should take a look at this piece by Cliff Taylor today in the Irish Times which sums up what we do know and outlines what we'd need to find out to establish if everything was above board or not.

Clarity would be needed on a few points here, but the fundamental issues are, first, what rate O’Brien was paying on his overall borrowings with IBRC and how this compared to other borrowers in IBRC. Given the privacy afforded to private banking arrangements we may never know this information.

The second issue which arises is whether the rates charged by IBRC to all borrowers were lower than market rates in general. This is possible - likely, even given that IBRC’s focus was on getting the initial borrowings back, rather than making an ongoing profit.

Graham

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No, seriously -- most people know the distinction between grandpa shareholder and the Banks. It's perfectly correct usage in modern capitalism to blame management of a entity for something, while understanding the owners are a diverse group of shareholders.

No, seriously. Have you not seen the pitchfork wielding muppets who really genuinely believe 'the government' should pay or 'the banks' should pay.

Eugene Norman

Graham wrote: »

No, seriously. Have you not seen the pitchfork wielding muppets who really genuinely believe 'the government' should pay or 'the banks' should pay.

Im saying the use of the term "The Banks" is ok in these situations. In fact I am not sure what you argument is. the government did pay as it happens, or we did.

Seth Brundle

thisismadness wrote: »

1. Really stupid question, unless you are going to get a reply from someone in IBRC - no one else in the world can provide an answer.

I disagree. The former head of IBRC has said that a number of performing customers got low rate loans. Why should the banking details of only one of these be a cause for concern?
Why aren't the others being named?

thisismadness wrote: »

2. You don't know anyone who had a loan 'from them'. Firstly IBRC/Anglo/AIB/BOI/PTSB is 'them'. If you don't know anyone who had a loan from 'them' your living on Mars.

I was responding to the claim that "we the taxpaying citizens were paying 7.5% interest on loans at the same failing bank" - I believe this to be a fair response to it.

thisismadness wrote: »

3. No one who had a loan from any of 'them' ever asked for a lower interest rate?? You have lost your marbles if you think that Irish people didn't try and negotiate interest rates??

Were they performing loans or did they overborrow and are now struggling to repay said loans?

thisismadness wrote: »

4) Suggestions are that Dinny got a lower rate because of his overall wealth - makes sense as he could provide a lot more security because of this.... The loans were given to companies with no personal guarantees so in fact there was probably even less security...

Are we discussing suggestions or facts?
I'd rather discuss the facts if you don't mind.
So, yes DOB got a low rate loan from IBRC due to his business interests apparently (based on Mike Ainsley's comment that all performing customers were treated the same and got loans that reflected the risk.
What is the problem with this?
Both the NTMA and Irish financial institutions borrow from the markets at rates that reflect the risk. For some time Ireland was a high risk. Now we are a good risk. Do you still think we should pay the same interest rates now as when we were a poor credit rating?

thisismadness wrote: »

5) what does IBRC have to do with distressed mortgages, now I am beginning to worry about you?

Go on, elaborate on the exact relationship (and not just Anglo failed so mortgages became distressed).
People borrowed to the hilt despite several warnings. However, all of this has nothing to do with one customer's banking details being leaked by someone within IBRC to the media.

thisismadness wrote: »

6) Vulture funds can buy distressed mortgages and make a huge profit, what can't the government? Yes it will hit cash flow in the short term, but longer term it actually the best solution. If you think the government should make decisions based on the short term reward you should probably be living in Malta.

The government is not there to make profit from distressed mortgages nor do I believe that it is a prudent way for the state to spend the limited money it collects.
As for it being the best solution, can you please provide a reliable source for this?

RecordStraight

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No, seriously -- most people know the distinction between grandpa shareholder and the Banks. It's perfectly correct usage in modern capitalism to blame management of a entity for something, while understanding the owners are a diverse group of shareholders.

Eugene, most people complaining loudly clearly don't have a scooby. Spend 10 minutes on any Facebook protest group and try to tell us that again with a straight face.

kidneyfan

kbannon wrote: »

Are we discussing suggestions or facts?
I'd rather discuss the facts if you don't mind.
So, yes DOB got a low rate loan from IBRC due to his business interests apparently (based on Mike Ainsley's comment that all performing customers were treated the same and got loans that reflected the risk.
What is the problem with this?

Aynsley's comments are assertions not facts. Based on the documents released by the Department of Finance Aynsley's assertions should be taken with a spoonful of salt.
We simply don't know the facts.

Seth Brundle

kidneyfan wrote: »

Aynsley's comments are assertions not facts. Based on the documents released by the Department of Finance Aynsley's assertions should be taken with a spoonful of salt.
We simply don't know the facts.

Fair enough buy I'll take Ainsley's assertions over the suggestions from some poster who joined boards today!

delahuntv

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Anyone trying to get their head around this one should take a look at this piece by Cliff Taylor today in the Irish Times which sums up what we do know and outlines what we'd need to find out to establish if everything was above board or not.

You would have to make comparison with someone who has equal quality of security of borrowings.

Unfortunately from 2007 to today, there are very few individuals that can match DO'B's quality of security (est net wealth $6.7bn.) The only comparison that could be made in Ireland would be with Martin Naughton (est wealth $2.2bn or Dermot Desmond $2bn) and even then his security would still be substantially better.

On a world scale he's about number 200 in richest on the planet.

So for Catherine Murphy to suggest that the 200th richest man on earth with a personal net wealth of $6.7 BILLION should pay a 7.5% interest rate on a large loan is just laughable. And tells you plenty of her pettiness and incorrectness in order to grab headlines.


Is there anyone here that thinks Catherine Murphy's dictat that O'Brien should have been paying 7.5% interest rate is believeable?

kidneyfan

kbannon wrote: »

Fair enough buy I'll take Ainsley's assertions over the suggestions from some poster who joined boards today!

Fair enough. But certainly based on the documents released by the department of Finance he isn't credible.

JacquesDeLad

I think there are some people who are bitter that DOB didn't go the way of Sean Quinn, who was a poster boy for a certain type.

Suggesting DOB should have been paying max interest on his loans is like saying Tesco should pay max wholesale price for their milk.

john.han

delahuntv wrote: »

You would have to make comparison with someone who has equal quality of security of borrowings.

Unfortunately from 2007 to today, there are very few individuals that can match DO'B's quality of security (est net wealth $6.7bn.) The only comparison that could be made in Ireland would be with Martin Naughton (est wealth $2.2bn or Dermot Desmond $2bn) and even then his security would still be substantially better.

On a world scale he's about number 200 in richest on the planet.

So for Catherine Murphy to suggest that the 200th richest man on earth with a personal net wealth of $6.7 BILLION should pay a 7.5% interest rate on a large loan is just laughable. And tells you plenty of her pettiness and incorrectness in order to grab headlines.


Is there anyone here that thinks Catherine Murphy's dictat that O'Brien should have been paying 7.5% interest rate is believeable?

Laughable? Not at all, Irish banks don't do huge amounts or corporate lending at the moment but back then that would have been typical enough, these kind of loans tend to have relatively short terms and highish interest rates, they're often used as bridging capital on large deals and have added risks attached. Right now banks in theory can raise large sums at low rates but that's often for security backed lending such as the ECB's current QE programme, certainly when Anglo gave the loan it's doubtful they would have been raising the money as cheaply as today's rates. The 1.25% rate would be far more ludicrous than a lending rate of 7.5% for this kind of loan.

john.han

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

I think there are some people who are bitter that DOB didn't go the way of Sean Quinn, who was a poster boy for a certain type.

Suggesting DOB should have been paying max interest on his loans is like saying Tesco should pay max wholesale price for their milk.

These loans have nothing to do with buying power. Not a comparison worth making.

STB.

The issue is the right to privacy where there is an overwhelming public interest.

You cant gag the PSB broadcaster, the Oireachtas and the media you dont own just because you have sheds loads of money and everyone is scared ****less of you.

Some might say the bigger question is, is this individual suitable to be in control of so much Media in Ireland ? The answer for me is No.

Seth Brundle

STB. wrote: »

The issue is the right to privacy where there is an overwhelming public interest.

Is the public interest in knowing that:

1. the IBRC gave out low rate loans
2. many performing customers of the IRBC received low rate loans
3. DOB got a low rate loan (the git)
4. private details of an individual can be disclosed within the confines of the Dáil without due consideration for due process (in terms of ensuring accuracy) or respect to a high court decision

From what I can see, the only interest seems to be in #3!

STB. wrote: »

You cant gag the PSB broadcaster, the Oireachtas and the media you dont own just because you have sheds loads of money and everyone is scared ****less of you.

He didn't gag the Oireachtas or the reporting of the Oireachtas - a court, by means of an injunction, gagged the media from reporting on his banking affairs.
Some media outlets reported on the matter with respect to the Oireachtas e.g. Broadsheet. However, by and large many media outlets waited until today to get court clarification on the terms of reference of the injunction.
The issue over the weekend was as the result of an unforseen and still yet to be confirmed prioritisation of constitutional rights - that of the court's ruling or parliamentary privilege.

STB. wrote: »

Some might say the bigger question is, is this individual suitable to be in control of so much Media in Ireland ? The answer for me is No.

I agree. I don't think it is healthy for one individual to control so much of the media. However, I don't quite see the relevance here - his owning of some media outlets didn't cause the issue over the weekend.

STB.

kbannon wrote: »

Is the public interest in knowing that:

1. the IBRC gave out low rate loans
2. many performing customers of the IRBC received low rate loans
3. DOB got a low rate loan (the git)
4. private details of an individual can be disclosed within the confines of the Dáil without due consideration for due process (in terms of ensuring accuracy) or respect to a high court decision

From what I can see, the only interest seems to be in #3!.

€500m of oustanding public monies to one individual is in the public interest, no matter who the individual is.

The damning Moriarty Report, the Siteserv debacle and the countless legal cases taken against Media by this individual might not enamour people to him. So what. The €500m of public monies is the issue at hand. It will open a can of worms as to what other preferential deals are out there.

Of course it is in the public interest.

kbannon wrote: »

He didn't gag the Oireachtas or the reporting of the Oireachtas - a court, by means of an injunction, gagged the media from reporting on his banking affairs.
Some media outlets reported on the matter with respect to the Oireachtas e.g. Broadsheet. However, by and large many media outlets waited until today to get court clarification on the terms of reference of the injunction.
The issue over the weekend was as the result of an unforseen and still yet to be confirmed prioritisation of constitutional rights - that of the court's ruling or parliamentary privilege.

No. His Solicitors must have done so of their own accord.

RTE, The Journal, Broadsheet and The Irish Times, all got a letter within a short period of time from his legal team threathening them with an injunction if they didnt take down the reporting of what Catherine Murphy said under Dail privilege. One stood up, the rest stood down.

Broadsheet where the only ones who had the balls to stand up to what some might consider to be bully boy tactics (wasn't their Host also contacted). Of course such requests couldn't be enforced on the foreign media or internet where these very actions made it all go viral. The NUJ suddenly woke up. The politicians in government hid. Apparently the didnt understand what Constitution Article 15.12 was.

kbannon wrote: »

I agree. I don't think it is healthy for one individual to control so much of the media. However, I don't quite see the relevance here - his owning of some media outlets didn't cause the issue over the weekend.

Relevance? Are you having a laugh. Seeking to gag the media with the threat of legal action whilst being in ownership of Communicorp and INM given the events over the weekend ? Seriously ?

Oh to be rich and powerful. Hey but thats just my view of it all.

EDIT: Vincent Browne just on here. No INM staff on I see. I would love to know what is behind the fear in Alan Dukes eyes.

blackwhite

john.han wrote: »

Laughable? Not at all, Irish banks don't do huge amounts or corporate lending at the moment but back then that would have been typical enough, these kind of loans tend to have relatively short terms and highish interest rates, they're often used as bridging capital on large deals and have added risks attached. Right now banks in theory can raise large sums at low rates but that's often for security backed lending such as the ECB's current QE programme, certainly when Anglo gave the loan it's doubtful they would have been raising the money as cheaply as today's rates. The 1.25% rate would be far more ludicrous than a lending rate of 7.5% for this kind of loan.

In 2012 i worked for an Irish corporate which secured 5 year funding at 3-month Euribor plus less than 1.5% margin. Our balance sheet was not as strong as DOBs

ComfortKid

delahuntv wrote:

I laugh when i hear the "we own AIB" line trotted out by SF and the usual naysayers.

delahuntv wrote:

We USED to own AIB - now the state owns 99% of it.

WE ARE THE STATE! We own it.

delahuntv

ComfortKid wrote: »

WE ARE THE STATE! We own it.

and it exactly that type of comment that shows the sheeplike form people will move to when they don;t understand something and prefer to believe the BS spouted by SF and the usual brigade of eejits.

delahuntv

john.han wrote: »

Laughable? Not at all, Irish banks don't do huge amounts or corporate lending at the moment but back then that would have been typical enough, these kind of loans tend to have relatively short terms and highish interest rates, they're often used as bridging capital on large deals and have added risks attached. Right now banks in theory can raise large sums at low rates but that's often for security backed lending such as the ECB's current QE programme, certainly when Anglo gave the loan it's doubtful they would have been raising the money as cheaply as today's rates. The 1.25% rate would be far more ludicrous than a lending rate of 7.5% for this kind of loan.

1 - no large corporation or high net individual would EVER pay an interest rate anywhere near 7.5% and as I said, as a SMALL business, I was able to get unsecured lending at just over 5%.

2 - "These kind of loans"? - What kind. Do you care to elaborate? If anything, short term loans get a lower rate as the marekt is more tuned into the short term.

3.- ECB rates have been exceptionally low for many years now. In January 2009 they dropped to 1.5% and have not gone above that since. Anglo/IBRC as a state owned bank would have access to those rates.

4. - We only have Caterine Murphy's unnamed sources that she will not say are 100% correct (most seem to have ignored that point - she only says she has "no reason not to belive them!!" - yeah, such a cop out, the same cop-out Mary Lou Mc Donald gave when she gave false information to the dail)

5. All the information will come out at some stage. But at that stage my guess is DOB will decide not to invest further in Ireland and it may affect other people's investment decisions.

6. My guess - and it only a guess is that a rate of 1.25% above ECB or DIBOR is what will come out. That would be a market rate for someone of DOB's standing or even slightly above. Remember, on property loans, rates of 0.75% above ECB were available in 2006! and still trackers 1.25% above UK Central Bank rate are available in the UK for joe soap citizens.

blackwhite

delahuntv wrote: »

6. My guess - and it only a guess is that a rate of 1.25% above ECB or DIBOR is what will come out. That would be a market rate for someone of DOB's standing or even slightly above. Remember, on property loans, rates of 0.75% above ECB were available in 2006! and still trackers 1.25% above UK Central Bank rate are available in the UK for joe soap citizens.

DIBOR was abolished in 1999.

delahuntv

blackwhite wrote: »

DIBOR was abolished in 1999.

as an officially recognised published rate with legal definition, yes, but still used as a rate base for some lending practices within the local market.

Seth Brundle

STB. wrote: »

€500m of oustanding public monies to one individual is in the public interest, no matter who the individual is.

The damning Moriarty Report, the Siteserv debacle and the countless legal cases taken against Media by this individual might not enamour people to him. So what. The €500m of public monies is the issue at hand. It will open a can of worms as to what other preferential deals are out there.

Of course it is in the public interest.

If it is a public interest story based on the size of the loan, then what other loans were referred to in the Oireachtas last week and who were the borrowers?
In terms of the Moriarty report, fine but in fairness the man has not been found guilty of anything nor should a dodgy action in the past mean that he should have absolutely no right to privacy ever again.

I am no fan of DOB but call a spade a spade - this is a witchhunt!

STB. wrote: »

No. His Solicitors must have done so of their own accord.

RTE, The Journal, Broadsheet and The Irish Times, all got a letter within a short period of time from his legal team threathening them with an injunction if they didnt take down the reporting of what Catherine Murphy said under Dail privilege. One stood up, the rest stood down.

Broadsheet where the only ones who had the balls to stand up to what some might consider to be bully boy tactics (wasn't their Host also contacted). Of course such requests couldn't be enforced on the foreign media or internet where these very actions made it all go viral. The NUJ suddenly woke up. The politicians in government hid. Apparently the didnt understand what Constitution Article 15.12 was.

Any gagging was done one the basis of a legal judgement not because of any solicitors letters.
The IT and RTE had their own legal team review any letters and they weren't sure if disclosing any further info would breach the injunction so they waited until the court clarified the matter.

STB. wrote: »

Relevance? Are you having a laugh. Seeking to gag the media with the threat of legal action whilst being in ownership of Communicorp and INM given the events over the weekend ? Seriously ?

Oh to be rich and powerful. Hey but thats just my view of it all.

His owning of the Indo, etc. didn't stop the IT or RTE waiting on legal clarity to see which comes first - a legal decision or parliamentary privilege.
Like I said, I don't think it's healthy that an individual owns many media outlets (both print and radio) but I still don't believe that him owning them or not would have made any difference to the weekend. His media outlets may have been giving biased stories (or no stories) on the matter, I don't know as I don't read the Indo. However, this wouldn't have given the IT & RTE a change of heart.
The issue over the weekend has to do with prioritisation of constitutional matters - which comes first. Even now with the legal clarification yesterday, we still don't know which trumps the others should this occur again.

However, this doesn't remove the fact that sensitive private information has been leaked from a bank to a media outlet and a member of the Oireachtas. The person referred to in this information does not have the right of reply per say. There is no way of knowing whether this information is true or accurate.
Similarly, other people are alleged to have received these types of loans yet their details aren't being disclosed. Why not? Why are we singling out one person and not others - are we 100% sure that their loans aren't the same as DOBs?
We recently had Mary Lou disclose incorrect information in the Dáil. We recently had Clare Daly disclose incorrect information in the Dáil.
Could any future legal action being taken against an individual be affected by disclosing these details (and I'm not just referring to DOB)?

blackwhite

delahuntv wrote: »

as an officially recognised published rate with legal definition, yes, but still used as a rate base for some lending practices within the local market.

And no bank will link to an informal unoffical rate in any legal loan agreements - it will always be some other legally defined rate (with EURIBOR having taken the place of DIBOR) referenced.

john.han

delahuntv wrote: »

1 - no large corporation or high net individual would EVER pay an interest rate anywhere near 7.5% and as I said, as a SMALL business, I was able to get unsecured lending at just over 5%.

2 - "These kind of loans"? - What kind. Do you care to elaborate? If anything, short term loans get a lower rate as the marekt is more tuned into the short term.

3.- ECB rates have been exceptionally low for many years now. In January 2009 they dropped to 1.5% and have not gone above that since. Anglo/IBRC as a state owned bank would have access to those rates.

4. - We only have Caterine Murphy's unnamed sources that she will not say are 100% correct (most seem to have ignored that point - she only says she has "no reason not to belive them!!" - yeah, such a cop out, the same cop-out Mary Lou Mc Donald gave when she gave false information to the dail)

5. All the information will come out at some stage. But at that stage my guess is DOB will decide not to invest further in Ireland and it may affect other people's investment decisions.

6. My guess - and it only a guess is that a rate of 1.25% above ECB or DIBOR is what will come out. That would be a market rate for someone of DOB's standing or even slightly above. Remember, on property loans, rates of 0.75% above ECB were available in 2006! and still trackers 1.25% above UK Central Bank rate are available in the UK for joe soap citizens.

You're confusing run of the mill business/personal loans with the kind of loan DOB would be involved in.

1 - Yes they would. When involved in deals where the loan is to be used to make quick profit, short term - high interest is the norm.

2. Shorter loans almost never have lower rates...

3. Maybe but how do you make profit borrowing at 1.5 then relending at 1.25?

4. Well there's a simple answer to all this, the truth shall set you free, DOB can let us know the actual interest rates applied

5. That's his issue, powerful people can't expect to have free reign to behave as they like, he has rightly been subjected to scrutiny.

6. That is not market rate, yes those trackers did exist - when banks were raising money on markets at rates well below ECB rates, currently the UK rate is high enough that banks can raise money on the markets below central bank rates and make PROFIT on those loans.

blackwhite

john.han wrote: »

3. Maybe but how do you make profit borrowing at 1.5 then relending at 1.25?

EURIBOR at less that three month resets is currently negative.

http://www.euribor-rates.eu/current-euribor-rates.asp

I'd expect the Irish banks to be paying a margin on top of that, but it's still not inconceivable that they'd be able to borrow with ST resets on intra-bank markets at less than 1%.

Mr.Micro

O'Brien got a good deal no doubt. He appears to be able to dictate the terms of his loan deals, presumably its tax payers money that is owed? The Dáil was virtually silenced by him, RTE the national broadcaster was silenced. We need clarification soon and not have someone running to the courts every time his name is mentioned.

Chips Lovell

The judgement, containing "minimal redactions" is out.

Interestingly, the judge said he found no evidence of the alleged verbal agreement.

BoJack Horseman

Mr.Micro wrote: »

......We need clarification soon

If you consider the money that state-owned banks had previpusly lent to be 'taxpayers money' then yes.... As every loan would be so.

My mortgage is from a bank 95% owned by the government...... I've never thought it as taxpayers money I was repaying!

jimmycrackcorm

Mr.Micro wrote:

O'Brien got a good deal no doubt. He appears to be able to dictate the terms of his loan deals, presumably its tax payers money that is owed? The Dáil was virtually silenced by him, RTE the national broadcaster was silenced. We need clarification soon and not have someone running to the courts every time his name is mentioned.

The Dáil wasn't virtually silenced. Just like Devores thread the media could have simply pointed to the Oireachtas website and said, look at what that says.

Even in today's judgment the judge has specifically said that there is no evidence that DOB did do anything wrong, that the issue boils down to whether IBRC followed its corporate governance correctly and that is where the public interest lies.

As such it seems wrong that Catherine Murphy tried to implicate DOB instead of focusing on IBRC and in all likelihood, a number of loans with similar characteristics.

FreudianSlippers

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The Dáil wasn't virtually silenced. Just like Devores thread the media could have simply pointed to the Oireachtas website and said, look at what that says.

Even in today's judgment the judge has specifically said that there is no evidence that DOB did do anything wrong, that the issue boils down to whether IBRC followed its corporate governance correctly and that is where the public interest lies.

As such it seems wrong that Catherine Murphy tried to implicate DOB instead of focusing on IBRC and in all likelihood, a number of loans with similar characteristics.

+1

That's the point people seem to be missing from this. The media was prohibited from reporting on the matter until the ongoing case had concluded; Murphy (whether her information was correct or not) purposely misused her Dail privilege to make the information public to (for whatever reason) impact the ongoing court case. If it does actually impact the ongoing case, she should be held in contempt of court.

However, I agree with the Judge that it is a step too far to say the media cannot report on Dail statements.

john.han

blackwhite wrote: »

In 2012 i worked for an Irish corporate which secured 5 year funding at 3-month Euribor plus less than 1.5% margin. Our balance sheet was not as strong as DOBs

So the rate was 2.8?

Mr.Micro

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If you consider the money that state-owned banks had previpusly lent to be 'taxpayers money' then yes.... As every loan would be so.

My mortgage is from a bank 95% owned by the government...... I've never thought it as taxpayers money I was repaying!

Yes, but are you dictating the terms of when and how you pay..... I would argue at the IRBC is a different animal with regards to state money.

BoJack Horseman

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes, but are you dictating the terms of when and how you pay.....

We agreed on monthly @ 1.15%

I'm pantomime villain Dinny, v2.0

blackwhite

john.han wrote: »

So the rate was 2.8?

Nope. (firstly, I said less than 1.5%, not exactly 1.5%)

At the time of agreeing the facility the rate would have been less than 2% (by Q3, 3 month EURIBOR was a less than 0.5%).

The rate is only set when there's a drawdown, and resets every three months after that - currently we pay less than 1.5% on it (or we would if we were currently drawing against the facility).

john.han

blackwhite wrote: »

Nope. (firstly, I said less than 1.5%, not exactly 1.5%)

At the time of agreeing the facility the rate would have been less than 2% (by Q3, 3 month EURIBOR was a less than 0.5%).

The rate is only set when there's a drawdown, and resets every three months after that - currently we pay less than 1.5% on it (or we would if we were currently drawing against the facility).

so you're getting lending at an annual rate set against a 3 month lending rate?

blackwhite

john.han wrote: »

so you're getting lending at an annual rate set against a 3 month lending rate?

Yes. It's standard in corporate banking arrangements.

Long term floating rate facility.
Rate is set at drawdown, and resets based on a benchmark every 3 months.

i.e.

Loan of €100m @3M EURIBOR + 1%

At 1/1/14 3M EURIBOR is 0.25%

First roll period expires on 1/4/14, you pay interest in arrears of €312,500 - €100m*1.25%*(90/360)
Rate resets on 1/4 to revised EURIBOR, which is 0.30%.
at 1/7/14 (next roll date) you pay your interest in arrears of €328,611 - €100m*1.30%*(91/360)

If you're working in banking then this shouldn't exactly be a shock to you - it's standard stuff

blinding

FBI>>> FIFA>>>>>>HURRAH

FBI>>>FG/FF/LAB>>>IF ONLY.

Ireland needs the FBI. America can you loan us the FBI please….please…please.

LuckyLloyd

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

+1

That's the point people seem to be missing from this. The media was prohibited from reporting on the matter until the ongoing case had concluded; Murphy (whether her information was correct or not) purposely misused her Dail privilege to make the information public to (for whatever reason) impact the ongoing court case. If it does actually impact the ongoing case, she should be held in contempt of court.

However, I agree with the Judge that it is a step too far to say the media cannot report on Dail statements.

What is your opinion on DOB's legal team sending threatening letters to media outlets that did report on her Dail submission?

FreudianSlippers

blinding wrote: »

FBI>>> FIFA>>>>>>HURRAH

FBI>>>FG/FF/LAB>>>IF ONLY.

Ireland needs the FBI. America can you loan us the FBI please….please…please.

What did FG/FF/LAB do to warrant an FBI investigation? :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What is your opinion on DOB's legal team sending threatening letters to media outlets that did report on her Dail submission?

Fairly standard stuff tbh. I'd be more worried about their competency if they didn't attempt to suggest that the injunction would extend to such reporting.

Mr.Micro

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What is your opinion on DOB's legal team sending threatening letters to media outlets that did report on her Dail submission?

Let's hope DOB does not go into politics. We might have a dictator in the making?

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Murphy (whether her information was correct or not) purposely misused her Dail privilege to make the information public to (for whatever reason) impact the ongoing court case. If it does actually impact the ongoing case, she should be held in contempt of court.

er, how?

The members of each House of the Oireachtas
... shall not, in respect of any utterance
in either House, be amenable to any court or any
authority other than the House itself.

FreudianSlippers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

er, how?

I don't think it's entirely clear that this extends as far as contempt. However, I would agree that Attorney General v Hamilton (No 2) does indicate that the protection extends beyond defamation alone. I would also question whether a breach of Standing Order 57(3) would remove the privilege - i.e. where the issue raised was done so overtly to attempt to encroach on the functions of the Courts.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think it's entirely clear that this extends as far as contempt. However, I would agree that Attorney General v Hamilton (No 2) does indicate that the protection extends beyond defamation alone.

What do you mean you agree? Nobody ever claimed it didn't. Of course it extends beyond defamation. The wording is clear.

I would also question whether a breach of Standing Order 57(3) would remove the privilege

A Standing Order cannot remove a constitutional right.

Like.. what?? Seriously.

FreudianSlippers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean you agree? Nobody ever claimed it didn't. Of course it extends beyond defamation. The wording is clear.

That's a pretty silly statement. Obviously it was a question or else what was the point of AG v Hamilton 2?

A Standing Order cannot remove a constitutional right.

Like.. what?? Seriously.

I'm not sure of your incredulity - perhaps you're a constitutional law expert, I wouldn't consider myself to be one personally, but I understand that these "rights" are not absolute.

In any event, I'm not claiming the standing order could trump the constitutional right, I'm suggesting perhaps there's a competing constitutional authority i.e. Art 37.

Where a TD takes advantage of a constitutionally appointed right in breach of a standing order the question is whether the authority of the court has been undermined in an unlawful manner.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's a pretty silly statement. Obviously it was a question or else what was the point of AG v Hamilton 2?

It wasn't a question here. Nobody here said immunity only applies to defamation, nor was that the argument in Hamilton so I am really perplexed as to who you were 'agreeing with' on that point, or why you raised defamation at all.

I'm not sure of your incredulity - perhaps you're a constitutional law expert, I wouldn't consider myself to be one personally, but I understand that these "rights" are not absolute.

I suggest you read the Hamilton case you mention before you say anything more "foolish".

" I think I should say this much about this aspect of the case. It is clear that if an allegation is made in the Dáil, simpliciter, then absolute immunity attaches to it. The person at the receiving end of the allegation has no redress in court. "

Do you recognise that?

The Supreme Court said the only limit on absolute immunity was that the TD or Senator was not immune to the House. That's the extent of the limit.

In any event, I'm not claiming the standing order could trump the constitutional right, I'm suggesting perhaps there's a competing constitutional authority i.e. Art 37.

What possible relevance does that have to a finding of contempt?

Where a TD takes advantage of a constitutionally appointed right in breach of a standing order the question is whether the authority of the court has been undermined in an unlawful manner.

It doesn't arise. It just doesn't arise.

FreudianSlippers

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It wasn't a question here. Nobody here said immunity only applies to defamation, nor was that the argument in Hamilton so I am really perplexed as to who you were 'agreeing with' on that point, or why you raised defamation at all.

I suggest you read the Hamilton case you mention before you say anything more "foolish".

" I think I should say this much about this aspect of the case. It is clear that if an allegation is made in the Dáil, simpliciter, then absolute immunity attaches to it. The person at the receiving end of the allegation has no redress in court. "

Do you recognise that?

The Supreme Court said the only limit on absolute immunity was that the TD or Senator was not immune to the House. That's the extent of the limit.

What possible relevance does that have to a finding of contempt?
It doesn't arise. It just doesn't arise.

You're a fairly abrasive poster and that's a significant statement coming from me.

I'm busy, it's nice out and you're clearly a constitutional law expert so I'll defer to your opinion.

No I am not an expert but I can read the English language as well as the next man. You referred to a link which undermines your own position. I think anybody who has followed this story knows that any prospect of Catherine Murphy being up for contempt is outlandish.

LuckyLloyd

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Fairly standard stuff tbh. I'd be more worried about their competency if they didn't attempt to suggest that the injunction would extend to such reporting.

So you agree with the judge that it was a step too far to suggest the media could not report on a Dail statement but find no issue with DOB's legal team taking that exact step. Fair enough.

Seth Brundle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So you agree with the judge that it was a step too far to suggest the media could not report on a Dail statement but find no issue with DOB's legal team taking that exact step. Fair enough.

Are you sure that the judge said that it was "a step too far" and not that "the injunction was not intended to block RTÉ, The Irish Times and other media from reporting comments made by Independent TD Catherine Murphy in the Dáil" which would be quite a different viewpoint?