# Ivan Yates on the Pat Kenny Show on News Talk



## Steve Thatcher

I have just listened live to a compelling interview with Ivan Yates about his bankruptcy in the UK.
He pulls no punches as he explained how hard it was, how low he flet, but ultimately how he had no choice.
He is back now debt free and re-building his life.
He offered 85c/€. It was rejected by AIB.
A brave interview and I suspect that once the dust has settled he may have further things to say about, banks, bailouts and debt solutions in Ireland.

Steve Thatcher
www.stevethatcher.ie


----------



## bazermc

Any comment on if he will be coming back to work with Newstalk?


----------



## Steve Thatcher

bazermc said:


> Any comment on if he will be coming back to work with Newstalk?



yes he starts on News talk breakfast next week I think

Steve Thatcher


----------



## RainyDay

Did he say what % he offered AIB (not Anglo)?

Here's a different perspective on how he avoided being made bankrupt in Ireland;

https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/...uide-to-avoid-being-made-bankrupt-in-ireland/


----------



## bazermc

Steve Thatcher said:


> yes he starts on News talk breakfast next week I think
> 
> Steve Thatcher


 
Indeed, confirmed he restarts next week

[broken link removed]

great news!


----------



## Steve Thatcher

RainyDay said:


> Did he say what % he offered AIB (not Anglo)?
> 
> Here's a different perspective on how he avoided being made bankrupt in Ireland;
> 
> https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/...uide-to-avoid-being-made-bankrupt-in-ireland/



He says he offered 85%.
He says they said to hum "Ivan it wouldn't matter of you offered 99% we wouldn't accept it"

Nice

Steve Thatcher


----------



## RainyDay

Steve Thatcher said:


> He says he offered 85%.
> He says they said to hum "Ivan it wouldn't matter of you offered 99% we wouldn't accept it"
> 
> Nice
> 
> Steve Thatcher



Just to clarify, your post said that he offered 85% to Anglo. The article I linked to refers to AIB.  So who did he offer the 85% to?


----------



## Bronte

RainyDay said:


> Did he say what % he offered AIB (not Anglo)?
> 
> Here's a different perspective on how he avoided being made bankrupt in Ireland;
> 
> https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/...uide-to-avoid-being-made-bankrupt-in-ireland/


 
You mean he stood up to them and won? What would have been the benefit to taxpayers if he had to go via Irish bankruptcy? Or would we have been better off if AIB had accepted 85 cent in the Euro and he had paid a million more?

Plus if they'd done a deal they could have saved a lot more money on legal costs.  

That article has a lot of nonsense, such as Ivan avoided service. Like Ivan wasn't in and out of Newstalk every day, at a particular time, isn't high profile and a two year old could have managed service. All it shows is the incompetence of AIB who cannot add up, they being bankers and all and not having the best accountants, adders and legal experts at their disposal. One solitary man defeated them.


----------



## Bronte

Steve Thatcher said:


> He says he offered 85%.
> He says they said to hum "Ivan it wouldn't matter of you offered 99% we wouldn't accept it"
> 
> Nice
> 
> Steve Thatcher


 
My OH told me it was 99.9%. Nice they ain't. But we know that. They don't like it when someone can and will stand up to them. It sounded personal. And vindictive. 

I also heard that there were a lot of angry callers/texts to the show.  

(It's AIB not Anglo BTW)


----------



## Delboy

Steve Thatcher said:


> He says he offered 85%.
> He says they said to hum "Ivan it wouldn't matter of you offered 99% we wouldn't accept it"
> 
> Nice
> 
> Steve Thatcher



I'm quiet sure that's Ivan's take on what they said to him!

Went on about how naive he was. Please, the man ran a string of bookmakers, was in politics for 20 years and in Govt for some of that....he's not some gob daw from the bog who'd never signed anything before in his life.

He referred to his pension on the news at 1 on rte. Part and parcel of the T&C's from him time in politics so he has no quibble in taking it.
Great T&C's though...looks like some are more equal than others in this republic

The whole episode makes a mockery of the British system. 'Centre of Interest' baloney. His wife stayed at home, he sat in an apt or in the pub all day in Swansea (working on his book during the time there also no doubt)...and bingo, 12 months later runs 'home' to Ireland and the old job is waiting for him and the debts have largely disappeared.
A joke and an affront to those of us who pay our debts and don't run to hide under the Queen of England's petticoat


----------



## ashambles

The innocence of some posters is heartwarming. 

When he says offering them 85%, what he means is some form of restructuring of debt, not a repayment of 85% which they'd have jumped at. 

Ivan was owing something like 3.7m to AIB and claims he offered 3.14m and was rejected. Claims the bank said if he offered 3.6963m they'd reject that as well.

The bank vindictivly threw those millions away and instead pursued a bankruptcy.

Here's one big problem, if he had 3m the bank would have no problem and neither would have had Ivan, with those finances and maybe 300k in annual household income the bank would have no need to waste money going after his bankruptcy or even to look for immediate full repayment, he'd just need to keep the payments up to date. 

In reality Ivan was several million in debt to more than one bank, and any income was spent partially servicing his debt. He clearly was not in position to be offering 3m to any bank.


----------



## RainyDay

Bronte said:


> You mean he stood up to them and won? What would have been the benefit to taxpayers if he had to go via Irish bankruptcy?


As the article points out, the taxpayer (aka AIB) would have been able to get a slice of his income over a 12 year period to repay his debts if he had gone via Irish bankruptcy. 

http://examiner.ie/breakingnews/ire...ttom-of-a-glass-during-bankruptcy-605595.html

It seems strange that someone could be so lonely in their 'Centre of Main Interest'. If it was his COMI, wouldn't one reasonably expect somebody to have some roots/contacts/community in their COMI?


----------



## Time

Not necessarily. You could live in the UK for 6 months and never step outside. It would still be accepted as your COMI.

I detects a lot of sour grapes from posters.


----------



## Gerry Canning

If half of what he complains and comments on about AIB is true ,  since we own AIB we still have a severe problem over their management and were we all are at.

If most of the people who have unsustainable debt could have moved to Uk 2 years ago ,we at least could see the size of the hole. As it stands AIB and the Rest of the Banks are only now getting round to looking at things !

I agree with Time , too much sourness.( Gets us nowhere.)


----------



## DB74

Time said:


> I detects a lot of sour grapes from posters.



Maybe some people just don't agree with bankruptcy tourism, which is effectively what Ivan Yates did here. He openly spoke (AFAIK) of changing his COMI to the UK for the sole purpose of bankruptcy. The whole process seems to have been neatly facilitated by Newstalk who gave him a career break of roughly 16 months to go bankrupt and then he walks back into the job after serving his notice in Wales.

I'm no apologist for the banks and have dealings with them regularly and find them clueless and unhelpful to say the least in some instances but IMO the behaviour of Yates just stinks and sickens me.

The period of 12 months to discharge is not long enough IMO and makes a mockery of people who struggle to pay their debts but continue to do so, even though deep down they know that they have no hope of any sort of decent pension pot or savings to retire on when they reach that age as all spare money is spent servicing debts.


----------



## Palerider

This is still quite a new concept in Ireland, i.e. the ability to run off to the U.K. and avail of their jurisdictions more relaxed views on bankrupcy, simply put it is bankrupcy tourism and I for one do not agree with it as a concept.

If I lend you money and you in good faith borrow that money after making a solid proposal to me and then go on and make a fortune from that seed capital then I care not, that would be the role of a Venture Capitalist, on the other hand I do expect you to repay me with the agreed interest, I don't care how long that takes, I will restructure, I may even write off debt but I expect you to face up to the debts you signed up for, as another poster indicated Yates was no gob daw.. 

I think the next generation will suffer the fall out, does anybody really believe Bankers will ever loosen up when the reality of the Irish businessman seems increasingly like....ah well if it don't work out I'll shag off to the UK for a while until it all blows over...happy days, in Monopoly it was called a get out of jail card and there was me thinking that was just a board game, Bankrupcy in the UK is the Irish business mans get out of jail card. 

Welcome back Mr Yates I see you have used your get out of jail card and hey I also see you've just passed GO, time to collect your €200 from Newstalk and off you go on your merry way.....so who actually paid your debt then....well it wasn't you so who cares..great little country this...I for one will not be tuning in...


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Steve

Isn't bankruptcy in the UK a matter of public record? 

Can we get a copy of his statement of assets and liabilities at the time of bankruptcy? 

Can we see the Official Receiver's report to show how the "€3m" was distributed to his creditors? 

Can we see how much his other creditors, such as the landlords of his bookmakers' business got from him? 

Banks make stupid decisions all the time, but if he was paying them 85% of his debt they would have taken it. 

Brendan


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Brendan Burgess said:


> Steve
> 
> Isn't bankruptcy in the UK a matter of public record?
> 
> Can we get a copy of his statement of assets and liabilities at the time of bankruptcy?
> 
> Can we see the Official Receiver's report to show how the "€3m" was distributed to his creditors?
> 
> Can we see how much his other creditors, such as the landlords of his bookmakers' business got from him?
> 
> Banks make stupid decisions all the time, but if he was paying them 85% of his debt they would have taken it.
> 
> Brendan



The bankruptcy would be a matter of public record. I am not sure the report to creditors would be. You would be able to get that from a creditor perhaps.

I suspect that most of his assets would have been charged. These would have been been taken by his secured creditors. Unless you can see what it was that was taken in and then what it realised, I don't see how you know what people got back. 

Did the bank get a trustee in bankruptcy appointed for instance?

Steve Thatcher


----------



## Time

I don't think you can get anything more juicy.


----------



## Cantalia

While I accept all the points of view above, and see the reason in all of them, I think the man has suffered enough. He wasn't underhanded, he was quite up front about what and why he was doing all the time. I wouldn't underestimate the effect it had on him his wife and his children. Go easy.


----------



## Annie51

+ 1


----------



## DB74

Deleted


----------



## Jim2007

Steve Thatcher said:


> He says he offered 85%.
> He says they said to hum "Ivan it wouldn't matter of you offered 99% we wouldn't accept it"
> 
> Nice
> 
> Steve Thatcher



I have to say that if Ivan was truly in a position to pay back 85% of his loans, I find it hard to believe that he would sit back and see all he worked for over the years go up in smoke!  

And furthermore if he had this much cash on had that would imply that his creditors should have recovered a substantial portion of their money, do we know this to have happened???

It's an nice story, but I would not but much weight by it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Cantalia said:


> While I accept all the points of view above, and see the reason in all of them, I think the man has suffered enough. He wasn't underhanded, he was quite up front about what and why he was doing all the time. I wouldn't underestimate the effect it had on him his wife and his children. Go easy.



Hi Cantalia

I really believe in bankruptcy and that people should be given a fresh start.  

But his story doesn't add up and if he comes up with a story like that, he needs to be able to answer questions on it. 

Brendan


----------



## Delboy

I look forward to the responses of some of Ivan's supporters on here once he gets back into stride on the radio giving out about public servants, how there's too many of them and how they're overpaid and underworked !!!


----------



## Delboy

I see he's also covering this week on Vinecent Brown show on TV3. A bit too much in the limelight too quickly perhaps...hard to see how AIB won,t try and get an order against his future earnings


----------



## Time

They can't. Under the law the can't.


----------



## NAMAwinelake

Did Steve act for Ivan in any way in his UK bankruptcy?

You can find most of Ivan's bankruptcy papers here (Gavin has responsibly redacted some very personal and financially irrelevant information)

http://thestory.ie/2012/12/19/ivan-yates-bankruptcy-documents/


In the UK, bankruptcy papers are usually private to the bankrupt, the trustee and parties with a direct interest, such as creditors. However the Sunday Times has a history of applying to the UK courts to gain access to the records for publication, most recently against Bernard McNamara who unsuccessfully opposed the release and publication of the documents claiming the ST had a "prurient" interest. The ST won its application with the judge acknowledging the public interest aspect.

So, you can see all of Ivan's declared creditors from page 14 onwards, with AIB owed some GBP 2.9m

Good luck to Ivan, he was hopelessly insolvent, some may say he did the easy thing in moving to the UK in what must be a very clear case of bankruptcy tourism; it won't have been easy, though Ivan may be overegging it. Ivan is now back where his enterprise and talent should add to the quality of the country; who knows, he might even create business. He certainly has the inside track on a condition facing hundreds of thousands of citizens.

When bankruptcy is eventually commenced in the Personal Insolvency Act (why the delay, the DRN, DSA and PIA have been commenced, why not bankruptcy?) Ivan will be invaluable in providing insight.

But who will find it just or fair, submitting to 36-month bankruptcy, when we have Ivan financially reborn in 12 months (he says he lived in the UK for 16 months).


----------



## NAMAwinelake

I note Justice Minister Alan Shatter is wishing Ivan Yates well.

How ironic that Alan's former political colleague has availed of a 12-month bankruptcy in  the UK, and Alan has not yet commenced the 36-month procedure in the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. 

But at least, we have a senior FG minister endorsing UK bankruptcy, and wishing the discharged bankrupt well.


----------



## NAMAwinelake

Interesting that Minister Shatter is endorsing UK bankruptcy where the bankrupt spent 16 months in the country, and practically the day after discharge walked back into Ireland as if nothing had changed.

I wonder what Min Shatter thinks of Sean Dunne whose US bankruptcy trustee has said Sean's COMI is the US and that Sean hasn't lived in Ireland for seven years.

Or what would he make of NAMA which has said it is opposing two UK bankruptcy applications by Irish borrowers.


----------



## Steve Thatcher

No I didn't act for Ivan.

I wish I had the publicity would have been manna from heaven. 

Steve


----------



## RichInSpirit

My reading of the 85% figure is that Ivan was offering 85% of his income towards repayments. 
Which would have left him with an annual income of 20k by my reckoning.
Sounds like a reasonable and generous offer to me.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ashambles said:


> When he says offering them 85%, what he means is some form of restructuring of debt, not a repayment of 85% which they'd have jumped at.
> 
> Ivan was owing something like 3.7m to AIB and claims he offered 3.14m and was rejected. Claims the bank said if he offered 3.6963m they'd reject that as well.
> 
> The bank vindictivly threw those millions away and instead pursued a bankruptcy.
> 
> Here's one big problem, if he had 3m the bank would have no problem and neither would have had Ivan, with those finances and maybe 300k in annual household income the bank would have no need to waste money going after his bankruptcy or even to look for immediate full repayment, he'd just need to keep the payments up to date.
> 
> In reality Ivan was several million in debt to more than one bank, and any income was spent partially servicing his debt. He clearly was not in position to be offering 3m to any bank.



Has anyone gone through the papers yet. Was Ivan in a position to pay AIB €3m ? 

Did the creditors get 85 pence in the pound?


----------



## orka

I still don't understand why someone with a substantial guaranteed future income can just walk away from all debts without having some charge on future income.  Yates has got a govt pension of 75K pa (index-linked) for life - why can't he be made pay even 20K pa out of that?  It just seems really unfair to debtors that he walks away from his debts, back into a life with a guaranteed comfortable income.  He is quoted as saying he is 'broke' - but he has no debts and an annual income of 75K plus whatever he gets from actual work (although I note he is careful to say that no contracts have been signed yet for Newstalk or a book) - there are lots of people in the country who would like to be his definition of broke.


----------



## millieforbes

Brendan Burgess said:


> Has anyone gone through the papers yet. Was Ivan in a position to pay AIB €3m ?
> 
> Did the creditors get 85 pence in the pound?



The assets listed total stg511k against liabilities of stg2.5m, thus a shortfall of stg2m. Some of the assets are subject to rights by other parties eg Ivan's mother.

I think these are the application papers and so don't detail the settlement


----------



## millieforbes

orka said:


> I still don't understand why someone with a substantial guaranteed future income can just walk away from all debts without having some charge on future income.  Yates has got a govt pension of 75K pa (index-linked) for life - why can't he be made pay even 20K pa out of that?  It just seems really unfair to debtors that he walks away from his debts, back into a life with a guaranteed comfortable income.  He is quoted as saying he is 'broke' - but he has no debts and an annual income of 75K plus whatever he gets from actual work (although I note he is careful to say that no contracts have been signed yet for Newstalk or a book) - there are lots of people in the country who would like to be his definition of broke.



The list of monthly expenses totals exactly his monthly income of stg3,130... presumably there was some questioning and review of this. He has also declared he has no income from his new occupation as author. There's no information in the papers on how the courts might have viewed future earning potential


----------



## ashambles

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...oke-and-wants-to-make-a-fresh-start-1.1513877


> Mr Yates said the bank got “hardcore” in late 2011 over the debts and claims that AIB rejected a settlement that would have yielded it up to 86 cent in the euro on its debts and would have netted it €1 million more than it now stands to make.


Clearly he wasn't making a straightforward repayment offer that some here believed from his words yesterday. There's a difference between offering immediate repayment of an amount versus presenting some plan that could eventually yield *up to* that amount. 



Also "would have netted it €1 million more" is incorrect - since the "up to" has gone missing.


----------



## Delboy

orka said:


> I still don't understand why someone with a substantial guaranteed future income can just walk away from all debts without having some charge on future income.  Yates has got a govt pension of 75K pa (index-linked) for life - why can't he be made pay even 20K pa out of that?  It just seems really unfair to debtors that he walks away from his debts, back into a life with a guaranteed comfortable income.  He is quoted as saying he is 'broke' - but he has no debts and an annual income of 75K plus whatever he gets from actual work (although I note he is careful to say that no contracts have been signed yet for Newstalk or a book) - there are lots of people in the country who would like to be his definition of broke.



The report on the 9pm news had a bankruptcy expert on it. He clearly said he'd be very surprised if AIB did'nt go after his future earnings.
So my reading of it is that they will seek an attachment order


----------



## Time

It it was an Irish bankruptcy maybe? Ivan will have been too clever for that.


----------



## Jim2007

Time said:


> It it was an Irish bankruptcy maybe? Ivan will have been too clever for that.



Only time will tell... It is my opinion that there are probably a couple of grounds on which a bank could seek to have a UK bankruptcy over turned on the basis that it was a sham and intended purely to avoid their Irish creditors, it really comes down to whether or not the bank is willing to invest time and money on it.  In most cases it is not worth the effort, but in this case it might just be worth the effort.... 

Only time will tell...


----------



## Cantalia

I have no doubt that the plan he proffered to ultimately yield 85p in the pound was perhaps a 10 year plan. I also have no doubt that he is subject to a three year income payment order under his uk bankruptcy, which means he has about two years to go. If you research these on the UK courts websites its clear he would be left with approx 20k per annum to live on from his pension income. Once his book is for sale his official assignee can review his income and up the payment order for the remainder of the three year term.
I have no doubt that in 10 or 15 years time Mr. Yates will have a business worth 3 million again and the bank might regret their course of action even more than they do at present.


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Jim2007 said:


> Only time will tell... It is my opinion that there are probably a couple of grounds on which a bank could seek to have a UK bankruptcy over turned on the basis that it was a sham and intended purely to avoid their Irish creditors, it really comes down to whether or not the bank is willing to invest time and money on it.  In most cases it is not worth the effort, but in this case it might just be worth the effort....
> 
> Only time will tell...



Actually you can move on the eve of bankruptcy. As long as you properly move your COMI. Yates did whether people like it or not. His creditors were aware and AIb didn't challenge even tho other banks had in the past. The lesson to be drawn is that if you do move you will be left alone to do it.

I am going to start a new thread in a moment which will really get people going

Steve Thatcher
www.stevethatcher.ie


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Delboy said:


> The report on the 9pm news had a bankruptcy expert on it. He clearly said he'd be very surprised if AIB did'nt go after his future earnings.
> So my reading of it is that they will seek an attachment order



I don't know who the "bankruptcy" expert was, but unless they already have an income payments order, or agreement in place it's too late. 

Bloody experts get everywhere, and half of them know nowt.

Steve Thatcher
www.stevethatcher.ie


----------



## Cantalia

Great.....


----------



## Delboy

Steve Thatcher said:


> I don't know who the "bankruptcy" expert was, but unless they already have an income payments order, or agreement in place it's too late.
> 
> Bloody experts get everywhere, and half of them know nowt.
> 
> Steve Thatcher
> www.stevethatcher.ie



http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10195007/
He's on here...2nd half of the news. I'd be surprised if rte had someone on as the expert in the piece who did'nt know what he was saying


----------



## Cantalia

Jim2007, I think you are not accepting the new world order of the European Union, it's no different than going to Hungary to get your teeth done, or moving up north for better facilities for an autistic child. However unsavoury you feel his decision was, there was nothing illegal in his actions or bankruptcy.


----------



## Cantalia

It seems he says he expects the court did make in income payment order, as I stated above. The official assignee will take receipt of the monthly payment and dole it out to the various creditors according to the bankruptcy order.


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Delboy said:


> http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10195007/
> He's on here...2nd half of the news. I'd be surprised if rte had someone on as the expert in the piece who did'nt know what he was saying



It is wholly ambiguous, the fact is that, if they haven't got an order in place now, they can never come back for more money, unless they can show it was after acquired property, ie income or wealth generated during the time he was bankrupt, eg commission.
Here he has his pension. He has his earnings from radio etc. Only the pension arises before the bankruptcy. If they were able to secure a contribution from that prior to his discharge, they can then look at all his other earnings for t36 months from the day the Income payments order was put in place. if they never secured an income payments order they cannot.

This is the problem with a four second sound bite, it has no context or explanation

Steve Thatcher
www.stevethatcher.ie


----------



## Artois

After looking at the UK bankruptcy documents - Some of Ivan's farms appear to be the subject of contracts with Platnium Presentations Ireland limited. Have AIB allowed Ivan's company buy the farms back?


----------



## Black Sheep

I don't think Ivan Yates has done himself any favours by telling all of us in his interview of how lonely he was in the UK. He drank too much, he sat alone in the pub sometimes all day and nobody even spoke to him.

The whole point of his being there at all was that it was HIS MAIN CENTRE OF INTEREST so where were those interests, no family, no friends, no busines, no hobbies.

Having said that I'm glad he's back and hopefully can get on with his life and rise again


----------



## Time

COMI has nowt to do with hobbies, family, friends.


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Black Sheep said:


> I don't think Ivan Yates has done himself any favours by telling all of us in his interview of how lonely he was in the UK. He drank too much, he sat alone in the pub sometimes all day and nobody even spoke to him.
> 
> The whole point of his being there at all was that it was HIS MAIN CENTRE OF INTEREST so where were those interests, no family, no friends, no busines, no hobbies.
> 
> Having said that I'm glad he's back and hopefully can get on with his life and rise again



I'm not sure about his comments. I think in hindsight this was about garnering a sympathy vote. I speak to everyone of my clients as they go thru. I can't recall one who has expressed this sentiment. Sure I bet it's lonely after a time, which is why I advocate bigger cities and immersing yourself in a job and other activities. You get out of this experience what you are prepared to put in.

Steve Thatcher


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Delboy said:


> http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10195007/
> He's on here...2nd half of the news. I'd be surprised if rte had someone on as the expert in the piece who did'nt know what he was saying



It starts at 13. 23

He looks a lot older.  

David  Murphy:  "AIB said that they had tried to resolve issues with Mr Yates in good faith.  Experts say  Aib can still seek some  of the former minister's  future earnings."

Tom   Murray of Friel Stafford: "  AIB can still seek some of his income. As a former minister and as a radio presenter, he has an income so  I would be surprised if Mr Yates was not subject to an income payments order"

So Tom Murray, who is an expert, is absolutely correct.


----------



## callybags

What's the point of bankruptsy at all if your creditors can look to commandeer your future income after being discharged.

If it's a case that this can be done because the income stream was there before the bankruptsy, then all Ivan has to do is form a company to channel the income through- at least for his radio income and any book sales.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Callybags

The point is that a person who has a decent income who is able to make payments towards their creditors should make a reasonable payment for a limited period of time.

In Ireland, after 3 years of bankruptcy, you can be obliged to pay for a further 5 years. 

It would be rare enough, but would be essential for high earners like Yates and pop stars.


----------



## needtoknow12

I can't understand how you can go to England, become bankrupt --- as in you're broke, come back to Ireland into a job that's kept for you and keep a pension!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just don't get it at all. Seems to me we should all do it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

needtoknow12 said:


> I can't understand how you can go to England, become bankrupt --- as in you're broke, come back to Ireland into a job that's kept for you and keep a pension!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just don't get it at all. Seems to me we should all do it.



A pension fund should be an asset like any other asset and should be used to pay his creditors.  There should be nothing sacred about it.

However, I realise that I am in a small minority who holds this view. 

People think that the only creditors in a bankruptcy are banks, so it's ok to shaft them.  But there are other creditors such as the taxpayer and  small businesses. I am speaking in general now, I don't know who Ivan Yates owed money to.


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Brendan Burgess said:


> It starts at 13. 23
> 
> He looks a lot older.
> 
> David  Murphy:  "AIB said that they had tried to resolve issues with Mr Yates in good faith.  Experts say  Aib can still seek some  of the former minister's  future earnings."
> 
> Tom   Murray of Friel Stafford: "  AIB can still seek some of his income. As a former minister and as a radio presenter, he has an income so  I would be surprised if Mr Yates was not subject to an income payments order"
> 
> So Tom Murray, who is an expert, is absolutely correct.



No, at the risk of repeating myself, "they can't still seek some of his income, unless there is an income payments order in place at the time he was discharged from bankruptcy.

Steve Thatcher
www.stevethatcher.ie


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Steve 

I might not be quoting Tom Murray word for word. And in any event, it was an excerpt from a pre-recorded interview. But Tom Murray certainly knows the law. 

I understood him to mean " There is probably an income payments order on Mr Yates, so AIB will benefit from it"  By implication, if it's not there already, AIB can't do anything about it.


----------



## extopia

Steve Thatcher said:


> No, at the risk of repeating myself, "they can't still seek some of his income, unless there is an income payments order in place at the time he was discharged from bankruptcy.
> 
> Steve Thatcher
> www.stevethatcher.ie



OK. But surely Tom Murray is saying he would be surprised if such an order had not been put in place. Yates himself has said he is uncertain about what will happen to his earnings over the next couple of years so it seems it is not cut and dried.

(Post crossed with above)


----------



## Dr.Debt

Well presumably the ministerial pension was fair game for a payment order up to the point of bankruptcy discharge however I cant see how Ivan's income from his media work could be attached if he only started that work after being discharged. I think Tom Murray was at least partly right.


----------



## Time

As I said earlier Ivan would not have returned to Ireland if he had not got all the bases covered.


----------



## commonsense

Brendan Burgess said:


> A pension fund should be an asset like any other asset and should be used to pay his creditors.  There should be nothing sacred about it.
> 
> However, I realise that I am in a small minority who holds this view.
> 
> People think that the only creditors in a bankruptcy are banks, so it's ok to shaft them.  But there are other creditors such as the taxpayer and  small businesses. I am speaking in general now, I don't know who Ivan Yates owed money to.




 [broken link removed]

Information regarding pensions and bankruptcy. It appears that his pension was approved for protection.


----------



## Dr.Debt

I think what that document says clearly is that a pension already, in payment, at the time of bankruptcy is fair-game for a payment order.


----------



## Cantalia

Yes I read it the same way. Re AIB and payment orders, as I understand it, for a period of three years after a UK bankruptcy order is granted, a creditor can at any time contact the official assignee and claim the bankrupt is in receipt of greater income and therefor look for an increase in an existing income payment order, or if none exists, ask for the OA to see if one should be implemented. Is that the case Steve ?


----------



## Steve Thatcher

Cantalia said:


> Yes I read it the same way. Re AIB and payment orders, as I understand it, for a period of three years after a UK bankruptcy order is granted, a creditor can at any time contact the official assignee and claim the bankrupt is in receipt of greater income and therefor look for an increase in an existing income payment order, or if none exists, ask for the OA to see if one should be implemented. Is that the case Steve ?



No if no income payment order is in place it can't be put in place.

Steve Thatcher


----------



## commonsense

Dr.Debt said:


> I think what that document says clearly is that a pension already, in payment, at the time of bankruptcy is fair-game for a payment order.



That's not how I read it.

It says:

"There are 4 types of pensions that you may have already or could be entitled to receive in the future."

In Ivans case:

"If you are receiving a pension the amounts of yourregular benefits: also the date you received any lump sum and the amount of that payment".

This pension has to be approved and in his case it clearly was. Although I do recall him mentioning that for the duration of the bankruptcy half his pension was paid to the trustee. 

Which seems to tally with the details here.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*AIB may take part of my salary for two years, says Yates*


*



BROADCASTER Ivan Yates says he still risks losing much of  his pay to AIB over the next two years, even though he has emerged from  bankruptcy in the UK.

Click to expand...

*


> Bankruptcy means his debt of €3.69m is now gone, along with all of  his former wealth including his claim to his period home and farm  outside Enniscorthy, Co Wexford.
> Even after all that, he explains it will be two more years before he will regain full control of his financial affairs.
> *
> *


----------



## Delboy

If your anti Ivan, your anti business apparently!


----------



## extopia

"What's good for Ivor is good for the country".


----------



## Decry

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought one BIG difference between UK and Irl bankruptcy laws/rules is that in the UK it doesn't include/effect your pension but in Ireland it does. So that was also a big attraction to the UK for Mr. Yates. If he had of declared BR in Ireland he would of lost his Irish pension. BTW, is there a way to go BR in IRL and protect your state pension? Move it abroad beforehand perhaps?


----------



## Time

If he was bankrupt here he would have been under a 12 year sentence. 

Bankruptcy under the 1988 act was like being a prisoner. You could do nothing. No passport, no prospect of a decent job etc etc.


----------



## RainyDay

Time said:


> If he was bankrupt here he would have been under a 12 year sentence.
> 
> Bankruptcy under the 1988 act was like being a prisoner. You could do nothing. No passport, no prospect of a decent job etc etc.



How does bankruptcy here under the 1988 Act affect the prospects of a decent job?


----------



## Time

Bankrupts cannot apply to certain professions.

Also many would not want a bankrupt working for them.


----------



## RainyDay

Time said:


> Bankrupts cannot apply to certain professions.
> 
> Also many would not want a bankrupt working for them.



And how does UK bankruptcy differ from Irish bankruptcy on this?


----------



## Time

After 1 year you are free and discharged. In Ireland it is 12 years.


----------



## RainyDay

So once you are free and discharged, you are able to get a job on those particular professions?


----------



## Kine

RainyDay said:


> So once you are free and discharged, you are able to get a job on those particular professions?


 
Not necessarily. While I agree UK bankruptcy is still better than Irish for a myriad of reasons, should you work under an FCA regulated body (i.e. Financial Services) you still need to fit some criteria. Bankruptcy etc won't automatically disqualify you, but you need to make your case and trust FCA views it as you acted in an open and honest manner and didn't do crazy stuff. 

It's not as black and white for a lot of professions


----------



## RainyDay

Kine said:


> Not necessarily. While I agree UK bankruptcy is still better than Irish for a myriad of reasons, should you work under an FCA regulated body (i.e. Financial Services) you still need to fit some criteria. Bankruptcy etc won't automatically disqualify you, but you need to make your case and trust FCA views it as you acted in an open and honest manner and didn't do crazy stuff.
> 
> It's not as black and white for a lot of professions



Yes, that figures, I just wasn't clear on the specific difference between Irish and UK bankruptcy in the context of job prospects.


----------

