It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.
A bit like an audit report so....................I think for a transaction of that magnitude where there is lack of certainty on the issue, a board will always get some CYA professional advice. In such circumstances though, the advice giver does usually realise that they are being asked to put their reputation (and indemnity insurance) "on the line" and , like hanging, that should concentrate the mind !
Cue joke about 'VAT at the Point of Entry'...The advice reads as self-serving and disingenuous in the extreme.
I wonder how much Anglo paid for this skein of legal advice to cover the the bank directors.
Amazing how small the difference is between common prostitutes and leading law firms. Paying for the best available advice is like paying for a high class hooker.
It would be interesting to know if this formal letter of advice from MOPs addressed the Market Abuse Regulations in terms of market manipulation.Depends on how you interpret the 'ordinary course of business' bit of s. 60 Companies Act 1963. Given the strict construction you need for a criminal conviction, I'd say it would be hard to get a conviction, but it may be possible to rely on the section in a civil action to annul the transaction.
If I was the DCE I'd look to the Market Abuse regs rather than s. 60 for a conviction.
The Irish Republic is built on fairly watery sand if one category of criminals can escape being held to have possessed mens rea by paying in advance of their wrongdoing for legal advice that tells them they can do their proposed act with a clear conscience.
Well, any system staffed by muppets is always in danger...case in point being the difference between Matthew Elderfield (most definitely not a muppet) and the former regulator. The question remains however whether Elderfield's strong enforcement of current legislation is sufficient; or whether new legislation is required.TonyB, it's the system and the people.
Well, one good thing to note is that reputation is important. That "advice was taken" is useful as a defence where the advisor is seen as being of good repute, and thorough. So their reputation and standing have a value, one that presumably they would like to retain and protect. It is a little bit "soft" though.I'm not saying that is what MOPs has engaged in with regard to the Maple Ten arrangement, but if it had been, would they lose any clients? Might they even gain some? Would the Law Society take issue? Would the firm lose out in any way?
I am amazed the inner circle even offered recourse to 25%How can Anglo call the funds given to the Golden Circle lads "loans", they were advised only 25% of the amount had recourse but to date nobody has been requested to cough up their 25%.
At the outset in theory they were a form of loan but in application and hindsight they were nothing of the sort.
I am amazed the inner circle even offered recourse to 25%
I would have bought the shares with no recourse as I was "bailing" out the Banks management.
Maybe that was the consideration needed to make it a legal contract
Without it , could it be argued that Anglo was just buying it's own shares in secret?