Liveline 16/1/09....Is this for real ? 19/1/09...even worse

I believe it was to do with the fact that AA facilitated the setup of the offshore loss accounts. So they were, in effect, covering up what was going on in their audit as they had knowledge of the off-balance liabilities.

I beleive I read somewhere that AA were eventually cleared to a certain extent many years later by some court. I.e. it was ruled that they shouldn’t have had their license taken away. This true?

Thank you.

Which brings me to my next point - Seanies loan carousel.

Whilst acknowledging that Seanie did nothing illegal, the knowledge of its existence, in my own personal opinion, does constitute price-sensitive information.

Consequently :
If Anglo auditors failed to notice it, are they in some way liable ?
Also, if Anglo auditors did notice it, and decided to do nothing about it (because it (technicially) did not break any law), are they again in some way liable ?
Finally, if Anglo auditors did notice it, brought it to the attention of the board, are the board now potentially liable ?

And presumably the same would apply to INBS?

Isn’t there something where shareholders can sue the board if misleading accounts are published and then the board can, in turn, sue the auditor if they feel they auditor was deficient in their duty?

Are we so sure it wasn’t illegal?

I believe so.

Should they have been expected to discover the loans. Perhaps.

If they were aware of it then it should have been disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Remember the directors are responsible for the preparation of the financial stetements. Had E&Y noticed and the directors not agreed with E&Y that disclosure was required, then E&Y would have had to consider whether it warranted a qualification of their audit report

In terms of it not showing up in the accounts or audits meant it was never known to shareholders is now a material fact is it not?

So it would it not naturally skew the reality of the companies viability/status, even by say a small percentage its implications where entirely more important.
A Director namely Fitzpatrick keep secret vital information.Beside the public, shareholders and MAYBE the Government the board however is a different matter. How many were on this board?

Why must the viability of the state be used to protect a handful of scoundrels?


why not take a claim against the auditors , or the bank regulator or the person who might have made a misrepresentation?

No offence intened to Pill or anyone else but the Anglo auditors have already proven then aren’t work a fuck

Exactly - the run only happened after it transpired NR could no longer borrow on the money markets or roll over it’s debt - the run just augmented an already existing problem

Or maybe the fact that Anglo made it this far is all the proof that is required that the auditors were well worth the money!!! :nin

I have little sympathy for her or anyone else who bought in over the last few months. It was a real gamble, and the writing was on the wall. Anyone who invested money they couldn’t afford to lose was insane, they had plenty of indication that the bank was a basket case.

No of course there should be no compensation.

ANYONE who bought Irish Bank Shares in the last 3 months, hell the last year, was taking a punt.
Hopefully not a big punt, and only with money they could afford to loose. Mr Quinn aside. There’s always one or two.

How many of the Joe and Mary Soaps on Liveline claiming they weren’t informed actually read an Annual reports? EVER?

Even if the Auditors had spelt out on excruciating detail all the failings of a bank, the Joe and Mary’s would turn to Bertie and the Two Brians, and if they got a thumbs up (everything is grand) they’d go out and buy.

If you’re taking a punt because share prices are at rock bottom that’s fine. But you take the punt in banks that have the greatest chance of surviving, and you only punt money you can loose without caring.

For goodness sake Anglo was the Celtic Tiger Property Bank.

The only thing worse than Irish banks being nationalised to save them, would be the state paying above the odds to compensate shareholders who put it all on black when the ball landed on red.

I have BofI shares, and even I wouldn’t agree with something like this for BofI shareholders if the situation arose.

Reality still hasn’t sunk in, we still have people refusing to accept pay cuts, demanding compensation etc. People seem to think the country is rich and this downturn will last a few months or a year more at the most.


Ex anglo employee on,now i know how we are where we are. “Things just went mad” “we have to help first time buyers”…anglo are as much a cause of this as anyone…FFS

its good medicine for them, everyone has to learn somewhere…(I do feel sorry for them though)

Leave it to the Pro’s…

Made the same mistake myself starting off with the tech stocks…

Recovered and learnt from mistakes…

I wonder can I get my bailout…

BRCM… Never went near it since…

about a year ago i went into an insurance broker and while discussing life insurance i asked did they recommend any shares as an investment option;
them “irish banks are cheap right now”
me “they’ve got a lot further to go” (must add that i had no idea they’d go this low) “anything else?”
them “aer lingus”.

with advice like that i have serious doubts about the value of my policy.

I did … 8DD.