HOWEVER, WHEN JUSTICE PETER CHARLETON RULED IN FAVOUR OF THE QUINNS, ANGLO/IBRC CHANGED THEIR MINDS AND APPEALED THE RULING, WASTING MORE TAXPAYERS MONEY.
IT IS TRULY DISGRACEFUL THAT NOBODY IS HOLDING THEM TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DESPICABLE MISAPPROPRIATION OF (OUR) MONEY IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO DENY THE QUINN FAMILY THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS IN HAVING THE TRUTH TOLD IN THE MAIN CASE.
ANGLO/IBRC HAVE ENDLESS RESOURCES (OUR MONEY) TO FIGHT THE QUINNS AND THEY WILL USE EVERY CENT THAT THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON TO COVER UP THIS CAN OF WORMS AND COVER THEIR DIRTY AR...S.
Now Anglo ask The Supreme Court to do it's dirty work
IBRC asks Supreme Court for Quinn decision overturn
Decision permits family of Sean Quinn advance claims which could lead to their avoiding liability for €2.34 billion loans
In the High Court in 2012, Mr Justice Peter Charleton ruled the family were entitled to advance claims that the loans were made for “wholesale” market manipulation in breach of Irish and European law.
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a decision permitting the family of bankrupt businessman Sean Quinn advance legal claims which could lead to their avoiding liability for €2.34 billion loans.
Patricia Quinn and her five children say they had no knowledge of activities surrounding the loans made to Quinn companies by IBRC’s predecessor, Anglo Irish Bank. They claim the loans were illegal because they were used to support the bank’s share price and they cannot therefore be made liable for them.
In the High Court in 2012, Mr Justice Peter Charleton, who is now in the Supreme Court, ruled that the family were entitled to advance claims that the loans were made for “wholesale” market manipulation in breach of Irish and European law.
Rejected
Mr Justice Charleton rejected Anglo’s argument that EU and national law had “ringfenced” the issue to the extent courts cannot prevent enforcement of an illegal contract. The court ruled that the family could make claims the loans were advanced in breach of market abuse regulations and company law.
The Quinns say the facts of the case entitle them to avoid share pledges and guarantees provided by them on foot of which IBRC sought to recover the loans and appointed a receiver.
IBRC argues the High Court was wrong to find the Quinns could rely on the “general principle of illegality” in support of their bid to avoid liability.
The Quinns also claim negligence by the bank, unconscionable conduct and that undue influence was used on them to sign certain documents.
IBRC contests all the claims made by the Quinns.
No comments:
Post a Comment