By Liam Deegan
With all of the well paid legal teams fluffing around like cormorants drying out their wet wings, it is amazing that not one person representing those who have taken Denis O’Brien to task have asked anyone involved within the now liquidated IBRC a few simple questions.
Questions that would put the cat among the pigeons such as;
1. If Denis O’Brien has a signed contract regarding his loans then why would he need to threaten board members of the IBRC with legal action after three occasions being refused to allowed to change the terms of his contract and then subsequently claiming that he had a verbal agreement with Mike Aynsley and a public interest director who had no say in whether O’Brien could or couldn’t get a deal to extend his repayment term?
2. Since when does a verbal agreement supersede a written one in law and knowing that changes to the contract requires the ORIGINAL signatories to agree to a change in said written contract? It is important to note that no country anywhere in the world has this spurious verbal agreement that O’Brien claims he had that supersedes a written contract.
3.Was a new contract produced to enable Denis O’Brien to continue to pay as he goes or was it a verbal contract between Mike Aynsley and Denis O’Brien without the knowledge of the remaining credit committee? So who is lying? O’Brien or Aynsley?
4. Denis O’Brien threatened to sue IBRC on the basis of him having a verbal agreement and they (IBRC) relented. So what solicitors gave that advice that allowed O’Brien to make the a threat that had no basis in law and what law firm gave the IBRC advice that they had to relent to a groundless threat, knowing that O’Brien’s case would never succeed?
5. Is this the basis of the injunction that was given in O’Brien’s favour by Mr Justice Binchy in that Denis O’Brien knowingly mislead the judge by using groundless and spurious allegations to find in his favour?
6. What part did the special liquidators from KPMG play as they had full control after the bank went into liquidation in February 2013, when these “negotiations” took place. The liquidators have said no such extension had been agreed between the parties however that leaves a very tell tale mark in that they were either excluded from the negotiations or chose to distance themselves from the verbal agreement that O’Brien claims he had.
7. KPMG liquidators were obliged by law to report to the Department of Finance on a regular basis so why did they not report this verbal agreement to Minister Noonan if they were aware of it? It also raises the question that if they didn’t know about it then how did Denis O’Brien manage to get a verbal agreement without their being informed?
8. Did Mike Aynsley and the rest of the Credit committee hide this information from both KPMG and the Minister or did Aynsley do this off his own bat, which seems incredulous on its own merits?
It seems that someone is lying through their teeth…