# Liam Carroll Denied Examiner



## canicemcavoy (1 Aug 2009)

Huge implications for NAMA here, surely, especially after Judge Kelly's scathing summing up?

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0731/carroll.html



> Mr Justice Kelly said he had the gravest reservations about the projections put forward by the companies in their application, which he said were devoid of reality. He said that even if he had been satisfied that the conditions for the test had been met, he would be disinclined to extend the court's protection to the companies, as he believed there was an artificial exercise under way to assist shareholders whose investments had been unsuccessful.
> 
> Justice Kelly said it had long been said that when a business that owes a small amount of money to a bank gets into difficulty, the business surely has a problem. But when the amount of money is large, it is the bank that has a problem, and this was the situation in this case. He said the amounts of money involved were enormous, with the total projected shortfall if the six companies were liquidated standing at over €1 billion.
> 
> ...


----------



## dewdrop (1 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

Cannot understand how an independent auditors report can be written by someone associated with the companies. Why was it accepted?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (1 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



dewdrop said:


> Cannot understand how an independent auditors report can be written by someone associated with the companies. Why was it accepted?



Just to be clear. The independent accountants (not auditors) report was produced by Casey McGrath who are the companies' auditors. 

The judge did not accept it and was highly critical of it.

The advantage of using a company's auditors is that they know the business can can produce a report much more quickly than a firm who do not know the company. This would be especially true in the case of Zoe, whose structure was described as "byzantine". 

The downside, as in this case, is that the judge was suspicious of it. 

Brendan


----------



## dewdrop (1 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

I am still confused. If the relative Act demanded an independent Report then why was it not provided. I appreciate theCompanies Accountants could produce the data faster but the requirement seems to me that it should be done by someone independent.  I must be missing something!


----------



## mercman (1 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

In this market it would be very difficult to obtain an independent report given the size of the Zoe Group and Carroll's interests. the personalities involved and the fact that by having a report drafted on the group could be a non earner as the likelihood would be it would have to be a freebie.


----------



## JoeRoberts (2 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

It doesn't matter if the company can't afford to get an independent report - the regular firm of auditors should not have prepared it and should now be reprimanded by their relevant association. They cannot be considered independent and should have refused the assignment.
How can we sell oursleves as a properly regulated country when this is going on, even after all that has happened.

It defies belief.


----------



## mercman (2 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

Moreover the legal profession, who are well versed with the laws and procedures, had the cheek to present it to a Judge of The High Court when they smelt a rat, instead of refusing to act or represent on their behalf.

Now this defies belief.


----------



## diarmuidc (2 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

well the good news is the judge didn't fall for it, and was prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes.


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

I find it amazing that apparently O'Carroll did not show up in court.  And recently Sean Dunne didn't show up for his own court case as he had the flu and instead his wife went.  How can you not show up for something so important?


----------



## dewdrop (3 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

Good article in todays irish times regarding the fees being charged for Examinerships. Nothing changes.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



Bronte said:


> I find it amazing that apparently O'Carroll did not show up in court.  And recently Sean Dunne didn't show up for his own court case as he had the flu and instead his wife went.  How can you not show up for something so important?



These are probably done on affidavit and argued by the barristers. 

There is not usually a need for direct personal evidence.

Brendan


----------



## Bronte (3 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

My meaning was not the fact that they didn't need to show up, but that something as serious as this in one's business affairs surely merits one's attendance.  It smacks of cowardice to me but maybe I've got it all wrong.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (3 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

If it was I, I would go to see how my barristers perform. 

But I have attended cases where the person most affected did not attend.

Brendan


----------



## Shawady (20 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

Liam O'Carroll back in court today.
Interesting quote in an article in the Indo.
http://www.independent.ie/business/...nal-bid-to-salvage-ailing-empire-1864691.html

"_This morning, Judge Eamon de Valera will consider an application to present a new examiner petition which would give the developer 100 days to come up with a survival plan -- and allow his empire to limp into the so-called 'bad bank' NAMA_"

The High Court and Supreme Court don't believe his recovery plan is viable but it is ok for the taxpayer to take his property portfollio on.


----------



## bacchus (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



Shawady said:


> The High Court and Supreme Court don't believe his recovery plan is viable but it is ok for the taxpayer to take his property portfollio on.



It depends on valuation.


----------



## onq (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

This appears to be the updated position [_my *bold*_]:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0820/carroll.html

_"Mr Cush explained to the court that the reason why the December 2008 business plan and the valuations contained in it were not given to the court during the first application was because Liam Carroll had taken the decision not to include them._
_Mr Cush said the information was available when the application was being made, and the advice from the companies legal advisors and other directors was that it should be submitted to the court._
_But Mr Carroll as leading shareholder and controller of the group had decided otherwise he said. And an affidavit submitted by fellow director, John Pope, and reports from Mr Carroll's doctors, suggest that at the time that he made the decision, *Mr Carroll was operating under stress and his decision making was impaired*, Mr Cush claimed._
_Mr Cush confirmed to Justice Cooke that *it was not the case that Mr Carroll had since withdrawn the insistence to exclude the business plan* and valuations, but rather that *the application was now proceeding on the basis of a resolution passed by the other two directors of the companies, Mr Pope and Mr Twomey.*_
_*The court also heard that, as the other shareholder of the companies, Mr Carroll's wife Roisin supports the petition*._"

This scenario does not bode well for one of Irelands "greats" in the building game.
Remember Carroll is no fool - he took on Noel Smyth in the battle for Dunloe and won.
It makes you wonder in what way the less capable players may have erred and how they will survive.

ONQ.


----------



## Shawady (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0821/carroll.html

He can apply for examinership now.
How can something that was thrown out of the high court and supreme court be entertained?


----------



## steve1234 (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

Corruption at its best - even the supreme courts decisions overturned by the elite.This will give them enough time for nama to take over the loans. what a laugh.


----------



## canicemcavoy (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



steve1234 said:


> Corruption at its best - even the supreme courts decisions overturned by the elite.This will give them enough time for nama to take over the loans. what a laugh.


 
Schoolchildren across the land will be in awe of the biggest "pulling a sickie" of them all.


----------



## runner (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

C'on, we are all human.
Even Sean Dunne has swine flu!
Very drafty place that high court.


----------



## steve1234 (21 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*

Wrong answer judges now vote again  where did i hear that before 
They have our best interests at heart though there gonna save us 'little' people


----------



## John Rambo (22 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



Bronte said:


> I find it amazing that apparently O'Carroll did not show up in court. And recently Sean Dunne didn't show up for his own court case as he had the flu and instead his wife went. How can you not show up for something so important?


 
The man's name is "Carroll", not "O'Carroll". Can somebody amend the title of this thread?


----------



## onq (23 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



steve1234 said:


> Corruption at its best - even the supreme courts decisions overturned by the elite.This will give them enough time for nama to take over the loans. what a laugh.




Its not corruption - its using the Court systems, which Carroll's are perfectly entitled to do.

Mind you,ACC didn't appear to cover itself in glory by its Counsel's incisive demolition of the Carrol arguments...

From the link posted by Shawady:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0821/carroll.html

_"Lyndon McCann SC, acting for ACC Bank, said a 'tactical and strategic decision' had been taken by the Carroll group to withhold evidence relating to its business plan and property valuations on the first petition for examinership.

"He described this as a 'bad decision', and said the attempt to introduce the previously withheld business plan was 'an abuse of the process of the Court'. He also described the content of the letters from the financial institutions as 'frankly, pathetic'."_

A 'tactical and strategic decision' to WITHHOLD evidence?
The lack of this evidence caused the judge of the case to refuse the application in the High Court.
Was the ACC Counsel suggesting the it is was a "cunning plan" on the part of Carroll to present a case without adequate supporting evidence?
Oh no, he then backpedals furiously and calls it a 'bad decision'.
Well, which is it?
A 'tactical and strategic decision' - which implies some clue on the part of the originator - or a 'bad decision'

And McCann's comments on the letters from the banks?

They were 'frankly, pathetic'.

Were they though?

Several Financial Institutions deciding to support an ailing company to prevent a catastrophic collapse in property values precipitated by the Bank McCann is acting for, with consequent degradation in the economy, is not, 'frankly, pathetic'.

Yes, this is a stop gap, and house prices are likely to fall and continue to fall until next year - this has been reported.
But catastrophic falls damage market confidence more than gradual, foreseeable falls and I don't see why our economic recovery should be in any way delayed by a Dutch-owned banking pulling the plug on one of Ireland's biggest builders.

And I also don't see how any act that's done within the law and supports the public good can be called corrupt.

On the face of this RTE report, Lyndon McCann SC did not appear to present any legal ground for not allowing the application.

And remember, this matter is yet to be decided.

The whole case has yet to be proven and hopefully the evidence in full can be presented without any more back seat driving from Carroll.

Looks like there may be more than one amazing precedent being set by this case.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## darag (24 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



onq said:


> But catastrophic falls damage market confidence more than gradual, foreseeable falls and I don't see why our economic recovery should be in any way delayed by a Dutch-owned banking pulling the plug on one of Ireland's biggest builders.


This is quite an unconventional belief.

Most people seem to think that Sweden enjoyed a far better recovery from their massive asset bubble, bust and banking crisis than did Japan.

One liquidated dodgy loans, selling the collateral into a "distressed" market.  The other attempted to buy time.

Markets hate uncertainty more than low values and function very poorly without transaction volumes.  Preventing the sale of things you believe have lost value does not preserve their value.  It also kills the economic prospects for all those who depend on transactions in the market.  In this case (property) that includes the government, the banks, builders/plumbers/electricians/etc., furniture/DIY/etc. retailers, autioneers, solicitors, etc.


----------



## dewdrop (24 Aug 2009)

Any chance title of post can be changed?


----------



## Bronte (24 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



steve1234 said:


> Corruption at its best - even the supreme courts decisions overturned by the elite.


 
It beggars belief that a Supreme Court judgement is effectively being appealed to the High Court.


----------



## Lobby (25 Aug 2009)

If the lenders are so supportive of the new business plan that Carroll has produced, will they give a guarantee that the loans affected will not be transferred into NAMA?

This whole court drama is to stall the liquidation until NAMA can get established, the main banks involved know that this is their best hope of recovering some of their money and will do anything to ensure it happens.


----------



## canicemcavoy (25 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



onq said:


> Its not corruption - its using the Court systems, which Carroll's are perfectly entitled to do.


 
I'd be interested to know how many previous Supreme Court decisions have been overruled in such a way. It certainly doesn't look good.


----------



## Shawady (25 Aug 2009)

The fact that the other banks are backing the survival plan should not be used as a defence by Liam Carroll. They are not going to have to deal with it once NAMA take it off their hands in a couple of months.
If there was no NAMA would they still have the same confidence he would turn things around in 3 years?


----------



## Bronte (25 Aug 2009)

*Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner*



onq said:


> Its not corruption - its using the Court systems, which Carroll's are perfectly entitled to do.


 
Can you name any other Supreme Court case that has been appealed to the High Court in the Irish Republic's history?


----------



## Complainer (26 Aug 2009)

Shawady said:


> The fact that the other banks are backing the survival plan should not be used as a defence by Liam Carroll. They are not going to have to deal with it once NAMA take it off their hands in a couple of months.
> If there was no NAMA would they still have the same confidence he would turn things around in 3 years?


Hence the importance of the taxpayer (via the AG) being represented at the hearings - [broken link removed]


----------



## nialdel (26 Aug 2009)

The guarantee of the Irish Govt. covers funds deposited with the Irish Banks until Sept. 2010 .
I'm unclear if this guarantee also includes the est. 90 billion borrowed by the Irish Banks from International Corporate Bond Holders .
In Irish Times today the 46 Economists state " most of the bonds are in great part covered by the 2008 State guarantee "
Is this correct ?
Why should Irish Tax payer have guaranteed international investors who invested by way of Corporate Bonds ?
If guaranteed by Irish State why have the Bond Holders accepted heavily discounted repayments from the banks in recent times ?
nialdel


----------



## Sunny (27 Aug 2009)

nialdel said:


> The guarantee of the Irish Govt. covers funds deposited with the Irish Banks until Sept. 2010 .
> I'm unclear if this guarantee also includes the est. 90 billion borrowed by the Irish Banks from International Corporate Bond Holders .
> In Irish Times today the 46 Economists state " most of the bonds are in great part covered by the 2008 State guarantee "
> Is this correct ?
> ...


 
See this thread about bondholders

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=922121#post922121

The reason investors accepted discounted repayments was because the debt in question wasn't covered by the guarantee. They were subordinated bonds.


----------

