Former Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) chief Michael Fingleton, who was once worth €75 million, was down to less than €25,000 in two personal bank accounts and had outstanding judgment debts of more than €10.7 million as of late last year, court filings show.
Michael Fingleton jnr, who was granted joint power of attorney last year in relation to his father, who is in ill health, said in an affidavit, sworn in December, that the 85-year-old’s main financial asset is an estimated €1.33 million he stands to receive from a potential settlement of ongoing legal action involving a Montenegro hotel project in which he invested in 2006.
The liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), which took over INBS in 2011, also allege a claim over half of the net €4.55 million proceeds Mr Fingleton’s wife, Eileen, made from the sale of a field adjoining the family home in south county Dublin to a developer. Mr Fingleton transferred his half stake to his wife in 2009. IBRC is contesting the validity of this.
The affidavit was filed as part of Mr Fingleton’s bid to stop a civil trial over alleged negligent mismanagement of the failed lender. The Court of Appeals ruled this week that the case, initiated by IBRC in 2012, can proceed, even though the octogenarian is incapacitated and unable to contribute to his defence.
The great Guinness shortage has lessons for Diageo
Ireland has won the corporation tax game for now, but will that last?
Corkman leading €11bn development of Battersea Power Station in London: ‘We’ve created a place to live, work and play’
Elf doors, carriage rides and boat cruises: Christmas in Ireland’s five-star hotels
Mr Fingleton’s sole current income is a weekly €253.30 State pension payment, according to a supplemental affidavit, filed in January.
Mr Fingleton has required 24-hour care since he suffered a stroke four years ago, with the cost currently amounting to about €160,000 a year, according to the main filing.
The former building society head “has had no significant income since his retirement in 2009″ and had borrowed €1.17 million from family members as of December to cover certain debts, healthcare costs, care costs, legal fees and other miscellaneous expenses, it said.
Mr Fingleton’s wealth peaked at about €75 million in 2006, made up at the time of a €30 million pension pot and 18 properties, according to the affidavit. Both portfolios plunged in value following the property crash.
The encashment value of the pension had fallen to €4.49 million by May 2011, as it was largely invested in Irish financial equities, including banks. Mr Fingleton cashed in the pension “to the maximum extent he is entitled to do so by law” to discharge part of a €13.6 million court judgment Ulster Bank secured against the former INBS head in November 2010 for unpaid loans.
Mr Fingleton jnr said that he was not aware of any assets, having made “due and careful enquiries”, that were beneficially owned or controlled by his father but held by a third party.
The Court of Appeals ruled this week that Mr Fingleton’s side had “not established that there was either a real or serious risk of an unfair trial or an unjust result” from the IBRC lawsuit.
State-owned IBRC’s liquidators originally put in a statement of claim at €6 billion, the amount lost by the building society after the 2008 property crash. However, it has since been narrowed to about €290 million, relating to a group of specific loans issued in 2006-2009.
[ Michael Fingleton fails to stop trial over alleged INBS mismanagementOpens in new window ]
“Much of the evidence to be adduced in defence of these proceedings will not depend on the appellant’s personal evidence, even if he were well and in a position to give evidence on his own behalf,” the Court of Appeals ruling said.
The court also said Mr Fingleton’s side did not establish through affidavits that he could not continue to privately fund his defence.
Counsel for Mr Fingleton argued in court in December that if the case was being pursued with the idea of getting hold of funds in a “vast pension pot”, that would appear to be “misplaced”.
However, Tuesday’s ruling stated: “The State has pursued the litigation at taxpayers’ expense, with possibly little chance of recovering the costs or damages even if successful. It is not for this court to intervene and say it is unjust to pursue the proceedings because of the costs to the public purse. The wisdom or otherwise of pursuing litigation must always be a matter for the litigant.”
