Jim Stafford
Registered User
- Messages
- 631
What is new about the judgement?
I think you are missing one of the key points of the ruling.What other lender in the market is offering such a rate?
I think you are missing one of the key points of the ruling.
The fact that no lender in Ireland would originate a loan on that basis was considered irrelevant because the loan was held by an investment fund.
But there's no doubt about it - the judgment is extremely pro-borrower.
It amazes me that some distressed borrowers are still wasting their time advancing "clever" technical arguments to stave off repossessions when these generous deals are available.
How is that a valid argument?
Are you saying investment funds can raise 21 year money at 3.65%?
Continuing that thinking, it would imply that the Court would not impose a 21 year fixed rate on a Bank as a Bank is what people perceive as a traditional "Lender". But that's just discrimination as they're both simply secured creditors, no more, no less.
I may be questioning the Judges decision, but it would appear from the article that Shoreline's counsel didn't make the case well (which is a pretty bloody simple case to make)
It amazes me that some distressed borrowers are still wasting their time advancing "clever" technical arguments to stave off repossessions when these generous deals are available.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?