elgransenor
Registered User
- Messages
- 71
Hi,
I was at the meeting yesterday in Dunlaoghaorie where the possibility of Anglo shareholders bringing legal action to recover damages for the debacle of the bank's current position.
It was called by Julian Deale solicitor from Monkstown, who described himself as a 'journeyman' solicitor;the conduct and structure of the meeting certainly confirmed that.
Also there was Mark Finan BL and we were told that Michael Forde SC has been instructed to run any action, if that is the decision of individual members.
Mr. Deale pointed out firstly that there is no such thing in Ireland or the UKas a class action so any actions taken would be individual shareholders taking action on their own behalf,through Deale's office and engaging the services of Michael Forde.
This was probably a disappointment to many of the 300 shareholders present and various questions arose from the floor as to who to sue etc.
The chairman was suggesting a derivative action,ie suing the company itself for the loss of share value and when asked how the company could pay assuming the plaintiff was successful the reply was that the govt. has guaranteed the liabilities of the company.
There was suggestions from the floor that the auditors should be the proper defendant for its failure to spot the shenanigans in relation to moving S. Fitzpatrick's loans off the balance sheet at year end and this was not ruled out.
In fact so little was ruled in or out that this looks like a process that could run and run because nothing seems to have been decided as to who the proper defendant should be.
Michael Forde's own text book, in describing derivative actions, says that they are the proper action to take when the company itself is the proper plaintiff but because of the majority shareholding of errant directors can not take that action. Julian Deale,in describing the use of the derivative action as the most likely option,seemed to ignore the logical conclusion of this action and that is that the minority shareholders,on behalf of the company,will be suing the company.
The length of time taken to get any action into court(a long time) and the cost for individual litigants(unknown) also disappointed many people.
We were advised that Lavelle Coleman solrs. have issued proceedings in this matter on behalf of other shareholders and that one eminent senior counsel is suing on his own behalf.
It will be interesting to see where this goes,if anywhere,but Deale's hope was that 25/30 people would sign up for the long haul.
A question from the floor was put to the solr. about the only people benefitting from this course of action was the legal people and despite the chairman taking umbrage at such a suggestion that was the impression I got as I left early and thought to myself that life was too short......
I was at the meeting yesterday in Dunlaoghaorie where the possibility of Anglo shareholders bringing legal action to recover damages for the debacle of the bank's current position.
It was called by Julian Deale solicitor from Monkstown, who described himself as a 'journeyman' solicitor;the conduct and structure of the meeting certainly confirmed that.
Also there was Mark Finan BL and we were told that Michael Forde SC has been instructed to run any action, if that is the decision of individual members.
Mr. Deale pointed out firstly that there is no such thing in Ireland or the UKas a class action so any actions taken would be individual shareholders taking action on their own behalf,through Deale's office and engaging the services of Michael Forde.
This was probably a disappointment to many of the 300 shareholders present and various questions arose from the floor as to who to sue etc.
The chairman was suggesting a derivative action,ie suing the company itself for the loss of share value and when asked how the company could pay assuming the plaintiff was successful the reply was that the govt. has guaranteed the liabilities of the company.
There was suggestions from the floor that the auditors should be the proper defendant for its failure to spot the shenanigans in relation to moving S. Fitzpatrick's loans off the balance sheet at year end and this was not ruled out.
In fact so little was ruled in or out that this looks like a process that could run and run because nothing seems to have been decided as to who the proper defendant should be.
Michael Forde's own text book, in describing derivative actions, says that they are the proper action to take when the company itself is the proper plaintiff but because of the majority shareholding of errant directors can not take that action. Julian Deale,in describing the use of the derivative action as the most likely option,seemed to ignore the logical conclusion of this action and that is that the minority shareholders,on behalf of the company,will be suing the company.
The length of time taken to get any action into court(a long time) and the cost for individual litigants(unknown) also disappointed many people.
We were advised that Lavelle Coleman solrs. have issued proceedings in this matter on behalf of other shareholders and that one eminent senior counsel is suing on his own behalf.
It will be interesting to see where this goes,if anywhere,but Deale's hope was that 25/30 people would sign up for the long haul.
A question from the floor was put to the solr. about the only people benefitting from this course of action was the legal people and despite the chairman taking umbrage at such a suggestion that was the impression I got as I left early and thought to myself that life was too short......
