# Seán Quinn's bankruptcy annulled in NI court



## apple (10 Jan 2012)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0110/quinns.html

Sean Quinns bankruptcy annulled in NI.

What are the implications so for the rest of us thinking of going that route especially the line below. 

During its challenge last month, the IRBC claimed that a European Directive that applies in insolvency cases stipulates that a person's centre of main interest has to be ascertainable to third parties, such as creditors.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (10 Jan 2012)

Hi Apple 

I would guess that people can't just arrive in the UK and claime to have established a COMI there.

It would have to be obvious to creditors. Presumably Quinn's creditors were not aware that his COMI had moved to the North of Ireland. 

But in most cases, the bankruptcy is not going to be challenged by anyone. 

Brendan


----------



## Wipetheslate (10 Jan 2012)

I think your right there Brendan. I think Mr. Quinn tried to do everything in a very hasty fashion to scupper Anglo's impending Bankruptcy proceeding in the south.Some of the evidence of COMI seemed laughable . I think if anybody is really thinking of traveling to UK to declare bankruptcy, I think they have to physically live there for 3-6 months and establish verifiable proof ie. welfare payments,national insurance number , proof of work,rental agreement , bank account, living receipts for food travel etc then you have a right to declare bankruptcy no matter what the banks say.


----------



## Steve Thatcher (11 Jan 2012)

Wipetheslate said:


> I think your right there Brendan. I think Mr. Quinn tried to do everything in a very hasty fashion to scupper Anglo's impending Bankruptcy proceeding in the south.Some of the evidence of COMI seemed laughable . I think if anybody is really thinking of traveling to UK to declare bankruptcy, I think they have to physically live there for 3-6 months and establish verifiable proof ie. welfare payments,national insurance number , proof of work,rental agreement , bank account, living receipts for food travel etc then you have a right to declare bankruptcy no matter what the banks say.


 
Hi Wipe you are correct. I have a post on here which clearly sets out what needs to be done.
I am going to do an analysis of the Judgment today and also an opinion piece for the  Sunday Business Post.
I will post it up here as well if anyone is interested.


----------



## Time (11 Jan 2012)

The sums of money involved here are vast hence the level of interest in getting the NI order quashed.
For a normal person no one would bother challenging it.


----------



## Bronte (11 Jan 2012)

Steve Thatcher said:


> Hi Wipe you are correct. I have a post on here which clearly sets out what needs to be done.
> I am going to do an analysis of the Judgment today and also an opinion piece for the Sunday Business Post.
> I will post it up here as well if anyone is interested.


 
And you also in that excellent post on another thread pointed out that you were surprised with how Sean Quinn had tackled this issue. 

He never even moved from the 26 counties as a started, though the judge didn't mention that (but I haven't read the full judgment yet).

In any case all Sean Quinn has to do now is do all the proofs the judge wants so he should move to the 6 counties, get letterheads printed with his new business address, change his address with revenue and his Dublin legal advisors, get letters sent to his new address, register to vote, etc etc. 

What is really stange about all this is a man with able to afford most expensive silks and able to buy the best advice and he managed to get it so wrong. So much for having and paying for the big boys from Dublin. What kind of advice did they give him I wonder. It was certainly very costly. If I were him I'd be very vexed.

Another issue for Anglo, if the man has no money what is the point of objecting to the bankruptcy in Belfast, why does it matter to them where he is bankrupt.


----------



## Time (11 Jan 2012)

Because they can drag it out for 12 years in the Republic. After 1 year up North he can start over.


----------



## markpb (11 Jan 2012)

Time said:


> Because they can drag it out for 12 years in the Republic. After 1 year up North he can start over.



That's no real advantage to Anglo though, is it?


----------



## Woodie (11 Jan 2012)

Apart from the rights and wrongs of this particular case, people will have their own opinion about that, but in general the issue of bankruptcy laws need to be addressed. It was a promised and it never fails to amaze me why the process of making sensible laws seems so difficult and long winded for our government.   People make mistakes in life and it makes economic sense to have a fair mechanism to deal with that rather than Dickensian laws.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jan 2012)

Bronte said:


> Another issue for Anglo, if the man has no money what is the point of objecting to the bankruptcy in Belfast, why does it matter to them where he is bankrupt.



It's not a question of dragging it out over 12 years. His is a huge empire and will take years to unravel. 

The Trustee in Bankruptcy would have control of his affairs. The Trustee will make decisions on his assets and liabilities. 

It's possible that a Trustee based in the Republic would get a better insight into his affairs and would be more motivated on behalf of his creditors.

He will not be able to travel outside the Republin without the Trustee's approval. 

Legal actions would be based in the Republic and not in the UK courts.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (11 Jan 2012)

Also, a person with a UK bankruptcy can retain their pension - I don't think they can in Ireland - a matter which I'm sure is very relevant to a man of Quinn's age.


----------



## Luternau (11 Jan 2012)

Bronte said:


> What kind of advice did they give him I wonder. It was certainly very costly. If I were him I'd be very vexed.



I think he stopped listening to good advice a long time ago. He has been gambling (sorry investing) for years and I guess he just thinks that the Frank Sinatra song, My way. was written for him.

I think the matter of the pension is only a small matter. I would say he did not put a lot of faith in others investing for his pension and his pension is the now encumbered assets. 

It does seem odd that John Fleming's bankrupcy was not challenged in some way. That was a large amount of money - rummoured to be up to 1.8bn if you include all personal guarantees and debts of the Group. Although he has been discharged, NAMA are chasing his pension and there are court proceedings due later this year. That will be one to watch.

I dont think that persons should be able to walk away from such massive sums after just one year and still keep a generous pension. I doubt that when the legislation that allows this was drafted that such large amounts were considered. The period of bankrupcy should be in some way linked to the scale of the debt. When it goes to 100's of millions,  perhaps 12years is a fitting period, some may say that it should never be possible to walk away from such sums-under any circumstances.


----------



## Artemis (11 Jan 2012)

Sean Quinn made mistakes but he also employed thousands of people and  made billions for the state. There seems to be a witch hunt to make an  example of him at the moment, yet the real architects of the collapse  received large pay offs and golden pensions. 

Four years later, the investigation into Anglo has achieved nothing.
The cost of the collapse of Anglo should have been limited to investors  and bondholders. It is government policy that has lead to it becoming  the tax payers problem.

Lets give some credit to the good he achieved. How many of the jobs  Quinn created, will be there in ten years, 50% at most. I bet. There are only so many multi-nationals we can beg to come hear.


----------



## Steve Thatcher (12 Jan 2012)

Bronte said:


> And you also in that excellent post on another thread pointed out that you were surprised with how Sean Quinn had tackled this issue.
> 
> He never even moved from the 26 counties as a started, though the judge didn't mention that (but I haven't read the full judgment yet).
> 
> ...


 
 Hi Bronte he wont have time to do all that as he has had a summons served already. he will be bankrupt before the end of February I assume.

I think that the main problem for him stems from the fact that he admitted that he habitually resided in Cavan, hence not the North. This will be fundementally different from anyone else seeking to go bankrupt in the North or England. if my advice is followed and someone relocates so that their centre of main interest and where they habitually reside is out of the Republic, it will not be open to challange.

He tried to argue that he had commercial interests in the North which included fughting his litigation. The Judge accepted that this could help establish his COMI in the North but only if he proved he did that from Fermanagh. His problem was that he couldn't his evidence was flakey at best and contradictory and he failed. What astonishes me is that he and his advisors didn't see this coming or were too arrogant to see it might happen and advise him to move North six months ago. He would never have had this problem now.

The simple messages here are two fold. We can put to bed once and for all the questions that keep being raised about whether it is possible to go bankrupt in the North or England and whether it wipes off your debts. It does, or you would have heard something about that in these proceedings.
Secondly if you move and habitually live elsewhere you can go bankrupt there. You need only be reasonably ascertainable to your creditors. My advice on that is move and a few weeks before you go bankrupt write and tell your creditors your new address. If they haven't been trying to contact you in the interim they can hardly claim they were prejudiced.

Steve


----------



## Bronte (12 Jan 2012)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's not a question of dragging it out over 12 years. His is a huge empire and will take years to unravel.
> 
> The Trustee in Bankruptcy would have control of his affairs. The Trustee will make decisions on his assets and liabilities.
> 
> ...


 
I don't understand this at all.  Are you saying that the UK bankruptcy would not be able to unravel all his empire?  That it can only be done properly in an Irish context, why so? Also why would a trustee in the South get a better insight into his affairs than one in the North, and why on earth would the Trustee be more motivated?

So what if he cannot travel outside the South without permission, what is the point of that.  

Your main point seems to be the UK bankruptcy is bad but Irish bankruptcy is good.  Am I misunderstanding.  

It still doesn't answer the question of what gain does Anglo get from the bankruptcy being in the South, financial gain?  Or is the aim vindictive solely.


----------



## Bronte (12 Jan 2012)

Steve Thatcher said:


> Hi Bronte he wont have time to do all that as he has had a summons served already. he will be bankrupt before the end of February I assume.


 
I don't see how he couldn't do all the above in a day. He needs to type up a standard letter (no doubt he has assistants) to all his creditors/banks/revenue of change of address, order letterheads by email today and get them delivered tomorrow, move tomorrow to the North etc. With what's at stake, and he must have his reasons for wanting a UK bankruptcy, that's what I would do if I were him and I'd follow the judges guidelines to the letter now that he has a list of what is needed. 

Still can't get my head around the fact he didn't move North, and that the advisors didn't highlight this to him. You would think that this was the most important thing to do. Maybe they did advise him and he didn't listen to them. Unless this has something to do with the family home and it's value.

As an aside, you need to change your key post thread on bankruptcy to add in the fact the person seeking bankruptcy needs to write a letter to their bank, credit card company etc of change of address by registered post/recorded post.


----------



## Steve Thatcher (12 Jan 2012)

Bronte said:


> I don't see how he couldn't do all the above in a day. He needs to type up a standard letter (no doubt he has assistants) to all his creditors/banks/revenue of change of address, order letterheads by email today and get them delivered tomorrow, move tomorrow to the North etc. With what's at stake, and he must have his reasons for wanting a UK bankruptcy, that's what I would do if I were him and I'd follow the judges guidelines to the letter now that he has a list of what is needed.
> 
> Still can't get my head around the fact he didn't move North, and that the advisors didn't highlight this to him. You would think that this was the most important thing to do. Maybe they did advise him and he didn't listen to them. Unless this has something to do with the family home and it's value.
> 
> ...


 

Hi Bronte, this is the essence of establishing your centre of main interest. yes he could do all that in a day, but he then needs to be in the jurisdiction of the court for the greater part of 6 months before he can present hsi petition. that is UK bankruptcy law. This is why I say that establishing your comi takes between 4-6 months as you couldn't present a petition to a court earlier than 3 months and a day. To do it that quick would raise questions from the Judge, so why risk it. 
Thanks I will chnage the big postings now.

Steve


----------

