THE “EXTRAORDINARY” bitterness and “bad blood” between bankrupt businessman Seán Quinn and Anglo Irish Bank, which he blames for the reversal of the Quinn family’s fortunes, is “impossible to exaggerate”, the High Court was told yesterday.
It was most unlikely, given the attitude of Mr Quinn and his family to their “implacable adversary”, they would take the risk of being subject to an application by that same adversary to be jailed, Brian O’Moore SC said.
This was “a gloves-off dispute” where any breach of court injunctions would be expected to bring a fierce reaction from the bank.
The animosity of Mr Quinn and others in his family to the bank was driven by his belief that it was responsible for the reversals in the Quinns’ fortunes, counsel said. Sean Quinn was driven by anger towards the bank, both its current management and the previous management, on foot of whose assurances he had invested enormous sums of money.
While the bank was alleging some “dreadfully sophisticated master plan” to place assets beyond its reach had been engaged in by the Quinns, the evidence showed no such master plan, Mr O’Moore argued.
Instead, what was engaged in was “firefighting of the most extreme sort” in the period up to and just after the bank’s takeover of Quinn companies on April 14th 2011, he said.
Counsel was making closing submissions on behalf of the Quinns opposing the application by the bank, now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) for orders for attachment and, if necessary, committal of Seán Quinn Senior, his son Seán and nephew Peter Darragh Quinn for alleged contempt of court orders restraining them from taking steps to put assets beyond the reach of the bank.
The orders were made in June and July 2011 in proceedings whereby the bank sought to prevent assets in the Quinn international property group, valued at up to €500 million, being put beyond its reach.
In separate proceedings, Mrs Patricia Quinn and her five adult children, who have owned the Quinn companies since 2002, claim they are not liable for loans of €2.34 billion made by Anglo to Quinn companies because those loans were unlawfully made to prop up the bank’s share price.
The contempt proceedings will conclude on Tuesday, when it is expected Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne will reserve judgment.
Closing submissions by Mr O’Moore and by Bill Shipsey SC, for the Quinns, concluded yesterday and the closing reply for the bank will be made on Tuesday.
All three respondents have said the family did take steps to prevent the bank moving against various assets, but they deny that any such steps were taken after the court orders were made.
The bank has rejected the claim that no steps were taken after the orders and has alleged there was back-dating of documents in an effort to support the claims of no breach.
Seán Quinn snr and his nephew were the driving forces behind a plan to put assets beyond the reach of the bank, and Seán Quinn Junior was also aware of that plan, the bank claims. Evidence showed steps in furtherance of that plan were carried out after the court orders, it also claims.
Explanations provided by the Quinns for the transfer of valuable assets in Russia and Ukraine for no consideration, or for nominal consideration, to apparently unconnected entities, including a Ukrainian man, were “incredible”, it claims.
Yesterday, Mr O’Moore said Peter Quinn had relied on an established Russian law firm to act for the Quinns relating to assignments of loans, but his confidence in the firm had evaporated as a result of how matters were handled. Mr Quinn trusted the firm and was at their mercy, he said.
