Liam Carroll Denied Examiner

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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner

steve1234 said:
Corruption at its best - even the supreme courts decisions overturned by the elite.
Click to expand...

It beggars belief that a Supreme Court judgement is effectively being appealed to the High Court.
 
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.
 
Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner

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

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.
 
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?
 
Re: Liam O'Carroll Denied Examiner

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

Can you name any other Supreme Court case that has been appealed to the High Court in the Irish Republic's history?
 
Hence the importance of the taxpayer (via the AG) being represented at the hearings - [broken link removed]
 
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
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register