Liquidator’s IBRC report in progress and to be sent ‘imminently’ - -> irishexaminer.com/business/l … 75595.html
ECB raises serious concerns about promissory note deal - -> irishtimes.com/business/econ … -1.1753024
Mon, Apr 7, 2014
IBRC progress update report 12 March 2015
Cash inflow and outflow summary
Outflows: €14.68 bn
Net cash 6 Feb 2015: €1.85bn
Tasks to completion
Liquidity management of €1.85 billion
Manage remaining loan book of €3.6 billion
Set up SMU by 1 July 2015. To support on-going activities, a Service Management Unit (“SMU”) will be put in place. This will comprise IBRC and KPMG staff and personnel supported by external service providers where necessary i.e. IT, HR, Legal. This unit will formally operate from 1 July 2015 until the liquidation is concluded. It is envisioned that 36 IBRC employees will form part of the SMU.
All IBRC offices closed with the exception of Stephen Court.
There are currently 157 employees remaining as at 1 March 2015. Staff levels are being monitored to ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained as the SL progresses.
A further 121 employees will leave IBRC by 30 June 2015.
As at 6 February 2015, IBRC had cash balances of approximately .1.85 billion. Surplus funds from the liquidation will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors.
The dividend payable to unsecured creditors cannot be estimated at this time.
We hope to be in a position to make an interim dividend to unsecured creditors in Q4 2015.
State for early cash payout from liquidation of IBRC
IBRC deal with the Quinn family would see pragmatism triumph over fairness
Constantin reporting Peter Matthews who claims that IBRC were cooking the books and extracting additional interest for many many years which was known to regulator and others.
Questions how investigation will fare if all this was supposedly known already and nothing was done.
^^^ This would appear to be massively important. But no mention in the media? I know none of us are surprised by what makes it into the O’Brien media or RTE, but ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.
Isn’t this the equivalent of the libor scandal on an Irish scale?
There’s an interesting discussion of “TIBOR” on an old NWL comment thread here:
I wonder what the ‘Public Interest Director’ Alan Dukes has to say about all this?
Anglo Overcharging Saga: Ganley Affidavit of 2013 - Constantin Gurdgiev -> trueeconomics.blogspot.co.uk … anley.html
Friday, June 12, 2015
So is the taxpayer now on the hock for possible/probable compensation ?
If there is fraud by one party in the performance of a contract, the other can apply to Court to have that contract rescinded. Consider that in the context of a loan agreement where a bank has fraudulently manipulated the Libor / Euribor rate. It would mean, subject to the Judge’s discretion, that the borrower would not have to discharge the interest due under the facility. The borrower still has to pay back the capital sum advanced of course, but in many instances would have already paid back the capital sum. They would not be liable for further interest payments and could recover interest payments already made due to the voidability of the loan agreement. The implications of this for any bank involved in interest rigging are potentially massive.
Not forgetting Peter Mathews was expelled for resisting the Fine Gael party whip back on the 2nd of July according to wiki.
How many are going to blame the overcharging on a business failing ?
The case Mathews was referencing (John Morrissey) related not to fraud or anything nefarious, but to incorrect application of the day count convention (or what seems more accurate, a failure on Anglo’s behalf to update their terms & conditions to reflect how they should calculate interest).
When debts were re-denominated in Euro on the change over from the Punt, the reference rate for the majority of commercial loans moved from DIBOR to Euribor. DIBOR (similar to LIBOR) was 365/365 but Euirbor is actual/360 (i.e. 365/360).
Anglo it seems, correctly changed the denominator to a 360 day year. However, they didn’t reflect this in their loan agreement terms & conditions. Morrissey who owed a ton of debt (30mm+ property related) to Anglo was seeking to have his debt set aside. The judge, decided this was nonsense, and simply recalculated the interest per the loan agreement T&C’s (which reflectied an “overcharge” of approx 140k) and subtracted the overcharge from the judgement amount Anglo was seeking again Morrissey.
Mathew’s hasn’t put anything into the public domain which suggests fraudulent behavior. His references to “TIBOR” overcharging are unsupported by anything published.
Conspiracy Gurdiev has obviously picked up on this and is using it to further his populist, anti-establishment doomsday narrative.
Mike Aynsley hoped the bill would be about €30 million back in 2010, but so far at least €500 million has been paid out (by the taxpayer) and this has a long way to run still.
This is the bit I don’t understand.
Surely such an emergency takeover by the government would come with the basic clause that the taxpayer isn’t liable for any illegal activity by the previous bank administration ?
Does someone have a link to the 500m figure? (Paid out to date).
I would’ve thought these would’ve been unsecured creditors.
I can’t find the reference to the figure now. It could be wrong.
Are you suggesting that borrowers won’t have to be reimbursed for fraudulent interest overcharging?