Utah 01 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 MEA hits the headlines in this week's Examiner (again). Why would Barclay's want an out of court settlement - unease in banking circles? Surely nothing untoward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 MEA hits the headlines in this week's Examiner (again). Why would Barclay's want an out of court settlement - unease in banking circles? Surely nothing untoward? Normally you'd be advised to try for an out of court settlement when your not 100% convinced of success and you want to prevent that one chink in your armour that you already know about being exposed in court. My guess is that the validity (or not) of the mea's power to lend is not as legally clear cut as it could be. Were that the case would you want it rumbling on for years exposing all sorts of stuff you don't want to or do you just want both sides to agree a deal. Seems to me this has all got very *grey* on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 All the more reason, then, why it should all come out in open court and the guilty hung out to dry. This affair appears to be full of shady deals and another one done behind closed doors to protect individual sensitivities is not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 We need to know which of the Athol Street mob advised on the deals in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Cains provided an opinion to Barclays, this was shared with the MEA, and concluded no issues so they went ahead. See PKF report for more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I suspect is that there was a lack of clarity as to the powers of the MEA to borrow, hence it was made through subsidiaries which, as registered companies, would not preclude borrowing. There is possibly nothing explicitly stated in the MEA's constitution on this point, so the borrowing went ahead by the subsidiary and the much referred to opinion, opined on the powers of the subsidiary not those of the MEA. It's just a guess, but I have always suspected that the borrowing resulted not from any shady dealings, but from trying to find a creative way around things to meet their commercial needs, and unfortunately they have strayed into a grey legal area which can only be resolved by judicial review. As for Barclays wanting an out of court settlement, given that this is probably something of a novel case, I doubt they would want to fund the legal costs when they can see a possibility of reaching an agreement with all parties to remedy any deficiencies in the legality of the borrowing. Let's face it, the worst outcome for all parties would be if the loans were deemed illegal. (Its also worth remembering that illegal doesn't necessarily mean criminal.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john99 Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 MEA hits the headlines in this week's Examiner (again). Why would Barclay's want an out of court settlement - unease in banking circles? Surely nothing untoward? Hahahahaha! Why would they indeed. Absolutely no reason in the world. Now for a non-rhetorical question. Why do the various arms of government, including for this purpose those other parties funded by government, want an out-of-court settlement. Especially since they've made no claim (by claim I mean statement of claim for restitution, damages or whatever, not just unsubstantiated mithering) concerning the loans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I suspect is that there was a lack of clarity as to the powers of the MEA to borrow, hence it was made through subsidiaries which, as registered companies, would not preclude borrowing. There is possibly nothing explicitly stated in the MEA's constitution on this point, so the borrowing went ahead by the subsidiary and the much referred to opinion, opined on the powers of the subsidiary not those of the MEA. It's just a guess, but I have always suspected that the borrowing resulted not from any shady dealings, but from trying to find a creative way around things to meet their commercial needs, and unfortunately they have strayed into a grey legal area which can only be resolved by judicial review. As for Barclays wanting an out of court settlement, given that this is probably something of a novel case, I doubt they would want to fund the legal costs when they can see a possibility of reaching an agreement with all parties to remedy any deficiencies in the legality of the borrowing. Let's face it, the worst outcome for all parties would be if the loans were deemed illegal. (Its also worth remembering that illegal doesn't necessarily mean criminal.) I can understand why all parties would seek to avoid legal costs, especially if a loan were deemed to be illegal (not necessarily criminal), as a case of this nature could prove to be very costly indeed, with only lawyers gaining. However, an 'out of court' settlement is all very well for the parties involved, but surely it does not answer Joe Public's concerns? Surely it should not be forgotten that this involves a great deal of tax payers money, in terms of the capital and the interest involved, as well as a chain of many publicly accountable individuals? Surely this still leaves outstanding: who authorised seeking the loans; who, if anyone, advised against it within the MEA; whether the government were approached for the money in the first instance, and if it was rejected, who in the MEA pursued this course of action; whether there was any advice on the loans from within government; as well as the detail of what the money was spent on? IMO, this still leaves room for a public enquiry, which at the very least would clarify and get rid of any 'grey areas' identified within the MEA (and other bodies); and provide 'assurance' to the public that this could not happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 There would have to be a public enquiry, surely. as a case of this nature could prove to be very costly indeed, with only lawyers gaining Is it too much to ask that in this case the lawyers don't win but get castigated, or am I not living in the real world to think such a thing would ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The question has to be asked, what good has any public enquiry done in recent years other than spend huge amounts of public money? Ok, so we may find out what happened, and who did what, but what will that bring us? You can't seriously believe that anyone found wanting is going to be made to pick up the tab? I would much rather see the money spent on trying to find a solution to the problem. I'm not sure exactly what the problem is now, tbh; money was borrowed and has to be repaid and serviced in a way that reduces the impact on the Island no matter how you look at it. If that process castigates certain players, then fine, but really energies should be directed to solving the problem which we have, rather than identifying who caused the problem. You know, a bit like spending all your time finding out who left the stable door open, rather than running down the road to catch the horse and bringing him home. Admittedly, there are lessons to be learnt, but I suspect the pupils are pretty well versed already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Admittedly, there are lessons to be learnt, but I suspect the pupils are pretty well versed heeled already! FYP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Cains provided an opinion to Barclays, this was shared with the MEA, and concluded no issues so they went ahead. See PKF report for more details. Cains should know a thing or two about raising money though. They own Equity, the licensed corporate and trustee service provider, which has a value of assets over $8 BILLION! To advise the MEA on legally and properly raising a loan for a few hundred £MILLION shouldn't be that difficult. That aside though, from my own experience on one of the projects, it does rather seem that those £millions of public money used for the various MEA projects were scattered round and grabbed by all and sundry who were involved. I have a mental image not dissimilar to the scavengers on the beach at Branscombe Bay - get it while you can and sod the legalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxcrabber Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 i now know where the independent thinker, peter karran, gets his facts from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 i now know where the independent thinker, peter karran, gets his facts from. I detect not a slight hint of sarcasm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 As a purley theoretical exercise lets suppose bank A advised by law Firm B loaned money to business C. In fact C had no power to borrow and B got it wrong. A now sues C which says yah boo sucks, but just in case A also sues B for negligent advice. B will have insurance, but maybe not enough to cover the claim in full A knows it may not win against C and if it claims agianst B it will only get paid out to the level of B's insurance cover. A does a deal with C, it gets back half, C is happy. A does a deal with B. It gets another 25%. A has 75%, B has problems being insured next year but is not bankrupted, C keeps some cash. Everyone happy The alternative is long litigation, massive fees, wasted time for management and executives an appeal, bad publicity all round/That is whay nowadays the courts and most savvy lawyers and certainly their business clienst will try to settle early on. That is why the alternative dispute resolution and mediation are thriving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.