Zoe Group fail again to have an Examiner appointed

Re: Liam Carroll Denied Examiner

I presume the judgement is delayed so Mr. Justics Clarke can go and look up his thesaurus to avoid repeating either himself or Mr. Justice Kelly with versions of the word 'fanciful'...
 
Re: Liam Carroll Denied Examiner

If Carroll and the banks are willing to treat the justice system which such contempt, it's no wonder the taxpayer doesn't have a chance of standing up to them.
 
Hi Canice

I am not sure that it is "contempt".

Most companies and individuals who are facing extinction fight for survival.
 
Brendan said:
Hi Canice

I am not sure that it is "contempt".

Most companies and individuals who are facing extinction fight for survival.
Click to expand...

Certainly both judges have considered Zoe's limp arguments to be contemptuous, I mean that in the non-legal sense, so let me perhaps use "arrogant" or "scornful" instead.

Justice Kelly used words like "striking" and "remarkable", "lacking in reality", "borders, if it does not trample on, the fanciful". Carroll had waited until "almost the last possible moment" before seeking the protection of the courts. In court Kelly asked, ""And the captains who navigated the ship onto the rocks are to remain in charge?"

(All pretty strong stuff, though not perhaps as strong as when he called Carroll ""a disgrace to the construction industry" when a construction worker died on his site.)

Justice Frank Clarke says today that the accounts were "either presented in a very poor way or just plain wrong", with "many inaccuracies in the material". After three attempts through the courts, I'm not sure how this can be labelled as anything other than arrogant.

Irish Election puts it well:

http://www.irishelection.com/2009/09/the-enigmatic-zoe/

"A second judge expresses exasperation with the Liam Carroll group examinership bid in rejecting it. So even with the latitude to make a 2nd application for examinership, they couldn’t get it right. Wasn’t it Sarah Palin’s line about trying to put lipstick on a pig doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a pig?"
 
Brendan said:
I don't think either of the words really apply.

I would think "speculative" would be the best word.
Click to expand...

You seen nothing wrong in a company going through the legal system three times and still presenting obviously incorrect information to the judge?
 
It would be clearly wrong to provide incorrect factual information.

It would be normal to provide optimistic forecasts in an application for examinership.

I didn't follow the case too closely, but one of the bases for appeal of the first refusal was that the judge had misunderstood the information. And I think that turned out to be correct. The appeal was allowed, although I am not sure if that was the reason.
 
Brendan said:
I didn't follow the case too closely, but one of the bases for appeal of the first refusal was that the judge had misunderstood the information. And I think that turned out to be correct. The appeal was allowed, although I am not sure if that was the reason.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court granted - and later dismissed - the appeal originally based on 3 things, according to what I've read - one was the fact that Kelly had made presumably subjective interjections about the property market. Another was that Carroll had been allegedly suffering some stress and that this had affected their case. Third, the Zoe group claims that they had backing from 88% of their creditors.

I didn't read anything in any press report about the Supreme Court claiming that Kelly misunderstood the information, and if that was the case, it seems that the Supreme Court and Frank Clarke both appear to have misunderstood it in entirely the same way.
 
canicemcavoy said:
The Supreme Court granted - and later dismissed - the appeal originally based on 3 things, according to what I've read - one was the fact that Kelly had made presumably subjective interjections about the property market. Another was that Carroll had been allegedly suffering some stress and that this had affected their case. Third, the Zoe group claims that they had backing from 88% of their creditors.

I didn't read anything in any press report about the Supreme Court claiming that Kelly misunderstood the information, and if that was the case, it seems that the Supreme Court and Frank Clarke both appear to have misunderstood it in entirely the same way.
Click to expand...

What I find hard to understand is why the Fleming Group were given protection when their situation seemed very similar to that of Carroll. I think it should have been allowed go through as it had the backing of such a large percentage of the creditors.

I understand ACC Bank are protecting their interest but they were one of the last banks in to lend to Carroll so cant be without blame themselves
 
At least our justice system is holding up, the Zoe case was a nonsense and the judges quite clearly saw that. They had two bites at the cherry and still they couldn't present a credible case, not even with the best lawyers, accountants, bankers and estate agents backing them.

What happens next? Surely they won't go back to the Supreme Court?

It's interesting that Carroll has this year transferred two properties to his wife's name. If this was done to avoid losing them under Zoe et al failing can the transfers be set aside?
 
Bronte said:
At least our justice system is holding up, the Zoe case was a nonsense and the judges quite clearly saw that.
Click to expand...

It's also galling to note that the banks who will be bailed out by taxpayers through NAMA colluded in this nonsense. In fact, the now state-owned bank, Anglo Irish, wants to give him an extra 68 million euro of our money (I'm sure Brendan will disagree, but we really may as well burn it on Stephen's Greenl; it may keep a few ducks warm at least).
 
Brendan said:
I didn't follow the case too closely, but one of the bases for appeal of the first refusal was that the judge had misunderstood the information. And I think that turned out to be correct. The appeal was allowed, although I am not sure if that was the reason.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they failed in their first bid, claimed that Liam Carroll was ill and refused to include relevant information in the documentation submitted to the first High Court hearing. They asked the judge to allow them a second hearing where they would present the new information (valuations and predictions I think).
 
canicemcavoy said:
It's also galling to note that the banks who will be bailed out by taxpayers through NAMA colluded in this nonsense. In fact, the now state-owned bank, Anglo Irish, wants to give him an extra 68 million euro of our money (I'm sure Brendan will disagree, but we really may as well burn it on Stephen's Greenl; it may keep a few ducks warm at least).
Click to expand...

Anglo giving him 68 million to build their new headquarters, yet some AAM posters that work in the banking industry reckon Anglo will be wound down once NAMA is up and running. Doesn't make sense.
 
I think its a case that if the money is spent to finish the building it will be worth more than just selling a half completed building. Im sure there is commercial rational behind it
 
paddy26 said:
I think its a case that if the money is spent to finish the building it will be worth more than just selling a half completed building. Im sure there is commercial rational behind it
Click to expand...

As mentioned, the 68 million is to finish off a building that's meant for Anglo themselves, a bank that is - let's face it - being wound down. It does not need new headquarters. The most charitable interpretation - and one I'm sure the judges came to - is that is a blatant attempt by the government, through the bank, to prop up Carroll.

Aside from the economics - what will the struggling public think when they see their taxes being used by a state bank to purchase shiny new offices from a failed developer?
 
canicemcavoy said:
The Supreme Court granted - and later dismissed - the appeal ...

I didn't read anything in any press report about the Supreme Court claiming that Kelly misunderstood the information, and if that was the case, it seems that the Supreme Court and Frank Clarke both appear to have misunderstood it in entirely the same way.
Click to expand...

You are quite right.

The Supreme Court did not overturn the High Court decision as I had thought. They allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is a completely different thing. They were only agreeing to hear the case again.

All three decisions were totally against Zoe.

I remember reading a report of the judge's first decision and I thought his comments were odd and I thought that he misunderstood the numbers. In the application for the appeal, the Zoe Group claimed this as well.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top