Drumm has valid case to sue Anglo for €2.6m for mental distress & loss of bonuses?!!!



Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,328
Come back to Ireland Dave...i would really love to see him stand up in an irish court and give his side of the story on why he legged it...

Thats not St Stephens green in the background....:rolleyes:

I wonder if the IMF could ask their buddies in the CIA black ops to do a nixer for us as were about to become 'clients'......
 

Lord Wellington

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
983
Anglo loaned Mr Drumm the cash to buy shares in the bank, but the bank later changed the conditions, making the borrowings recourse instead of non-recourse loans.

Bankruptcy trustee Kathleen Dwyer said in doing so Anglo had reneged on an initial agreement and behaved in a fraudulent manner."

Who were the directors when the conditions were changed?

Who committed the fraud?
 

nonpartyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
6,782
A toerag but a scapegoat none the less, we need cabinet ministers, senior civil servants, regulators , central bankers all on trial aswell.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
He's going to have to provide something to back up the claim of inducement, and even then it's hard to see it as a flier. He's not saying that the bank unilaterally decided to change the contract, but that he was somehow unfairly persuaded to do so by them.

The one thing acting in his favour is that the decision to change the terms of the loan in the manner he did is so that it's hard to believe a rational person could have done it.

The mental distress thing is bunk. From everything I've read on the bonus, he's going to get it.
 

Lord Wellington

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
983
He's going to have to provide something to back up the claim of inducement, and even then it's hard to see it as a flier. He's not saying that the bank unilaterally decided to change the contract, but that he was somehow unfairly persuaded to do so by them.

The one thing acting in his favour is that the decision to change the terms of the loan in the manner he did is so that it's hard to believe a rational person could have done it.

The mental distress thing is bunk. From everything I've read on the bonus, he's going to get it.
Why would he voluntarily change the contract without consideration.
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,328
A toerag but a scapegoat none the less, we need cabinet ministers, senior civil servants, regulators , central bankers all on trial aswell.
Yep but will it ever happen....?.....we don't need IMF intervention ,we just need intervention at all levels...judicial,economic,political......

Tribunals are a waste of time and money...the powers that be are quick enough to use the CAB and the Garda against 'ordinary' criminals..but if you happen to be a politico or a banker..:rolleyes:....large pension and off into the sunset with you....
 

darkhorse

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
17,954
It's unreal, after what he and others have done to this country and he could sue Anglo (in effect the State) for €2.6m for "mental distress".
This is a US court where all sides get a fair hearing and the judge or jury makes a decision based on the facts - not an Irish trial-by-media kargaroo court.
I wouldnt assume anything about the outcome at least until the facts are heard.
 

Lord Wellington

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
983
Ms Dwyer also claimed that senior officers of Anglo were "mandated" to buy shares by Mr FitzPatrick, who required executive directors of the bank to buy the bank's stock or exercise stock options "in an effort to prop up the bank".

Not looking good.

I'd say Anglo has to win the case.

If they don't a whole can of whoop ass just got opened.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
Why would he voluntarily change the contract without consideration.
Totally, but in and of itself, that's not enough for anyone to say "I'm now convinced that he was unfairly induced to change this". This will be incredibly entertaining, and I hope the papers send over reporters to get transcripts.

Ms Dwyer also claimed that senior officers of Anglo were "mandated" to buy shares by Mr FitzPatrick, who required executive directors of the bank to buy the bank's stock or exercise stock options "in an effort to prop up the bank".
There's a certain degree on pressure on all of us who work in PLCs to purchase shares. Again, he's going to need to come up with more than his word to convince people he was forced into buying shares.
 

Chrisco

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
3,822
Totally, but in and of itself, that's not enough for anyone to say "I'm now convinced that he was unfairly induced to change this". This will be incredibly entertaining, and I hope the papers send over reporters to get transcripts.
The court has supplied the audio.
 

Lord Wellington

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
983
This will be incredibly entertaining, and I hope the papers send over reporters to get transcripts.
It is the least we deserve from the print media.

I do hope we are not going to have to rely on second hand reports of this.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
Amazing. Did FitzPatrick force them to buy shares? Impossible. Just say no.

The kicker was there was no risk. Do you want to buy €8 million worth of shares with no security needed and no personal guarantee?

Of course you would :)
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
Amazing. Did FitzPatrick force them to buy shares? Impossible. Just say no.

The kicker was there was no risk. Do you want to buy €8 million worth of shares with no security needed and no personal guarantee?

Of course you would :)
Of course you would. Drumm's point (and something the case will focus on) is why would you make that deal, then change it to a situation where you're endangered?
 

Lord Wellington

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
983
Of course you would. Drumm's point (and something the case will focus on) is why would you make that deal, then change it to a situation where you're endangered?
As he recieved no consideration and as he is not insane it, in my opinion, can only have been duress.

"We'll sack you without compensation. We will sue you for A or B or C"

No sane person would sign up to a liability of €8m if they were geting nothing in return.
 

locke

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,173
I understand why the bankruptcy proceedings are taking place in America, but can someone explain why the counter-suit is happening there. It would seem to be a matter for Irish law.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top