I agree with BB but ...
... possibly even more emphatically, despite the fact that I am not, and have never been, a shareholder in AIB. (My pension funds may have been, but I had no influence on their decision if they did).
My points:
1. Not so sure that AIB could have gotten away with claiming limited liability. Legally, they would have the better arguments, but even the law is now shifting on this. In 1983, who can now say what might have happend if it had been tested ?
2. "If AIB had not bought it, ICI would have gone into administration anyway - just like the PMPA did. AIB owned and controlled ICI for a very short time." And everyone - except me, apparently - forgets that it was the State that controlled ICI before AIB, and that it was during the earlier period that the losses were incurred.
3. If the State had refused to intervene, AIB would not have gone "bust". IMHO.
4. The State it was which insisted that all the loss-making contracts be honoured in full. That was the reason for the ridiculously high cost of the ICI failure. Does this remind you of anything more recent ? Hint: Anglo.