Pinned Tweet
☘️Many of you have reached out recently asking what I’m trying to achieve with my posts.☘️
1/
🔹The answer is quite simple.
🔹I share my experiences & what I’ve learned in the hope that others, particularly Irish lay litigants, will look again at their own cases & ask themselves:
Could this be happening to me?
🔎 Business loans, derivatives & hidden credit lines
🔹Was I told I was simply fixing the interest rate on my business loan, when in fact I was being entered into a complex interest rate derivative / swap with risks & liabilities that were never properly explained?
🔹Was a separate credit line created to accommodate the potential liabilities arising from that swap/derivative, without my knowledge or informed consent?
🔹Was that hidden credit line subsequently treated as a separate debt, even though I never applied for it, signed a loan agreement for it or received the funds?
🔹Was the derivative separated from the underlying business loan, with the bank subsequently seeking to enforce liabilities arising from an arrangement I never understood or knowingly agreed to?
🔹Was my business loan called in, or my property revalued, in circumstances that created or accelerated an alleged default?
🏠 Residential mortgages & mortgage overcharging
These are separate issues from derivatives, but they raise equally important questions.
🔹Was I overcharged interest on my mortgage & have I ever received a proper explanation of how the interest was calculated?
🔹Was I entitled to a tracker mortgage rate that was removed, denied or never properly applied from the outset?
🔹Were increases in my standard variable rate consistent with the terms of my mortgage agreement?
🔹Were incorrect interest rates applied over a number of years, resulting in arrears or an outstanding balance that may not be accurate?
🔹Have I ever independently checked whether the mortgage balance being claimed against me reconciles with the original agreement, interest rates, repayments & account statements?
🔹Did I ever actually sign the mortgage agreement, the loan or restructuring documentation now being relied upon by a bank or credit servicer to enforce the debt?
⚖️ Evidence, reports & court proceedings
And then there are questions that arise across both types of cases.
🔹Did I attend a meeting where important evidence was discussed, only to discover that the subsequent report recorded something entirely different or omitted crucial admissions?
🔹Were important documents overlooked, withheld or inaccurately represented during litigation?
🔹Did the evidence presented to the court accurately reflect the underlying financial transactions & contractual documents?
🔹Were my instructions to my legal representatives actually followed?
These are the kinds of questions I want people to ask themselves.
Yes, I repeat certain points. Deliberately.
Someone reading a post today for the first time may be the very person who needs that information most.
🤝 Trust and consent
🔹I’m very fortunate that so many people trust me with their experiences, including lay litigants, legal professionals and others who have encountered difficulties within our courts.
🔹Some of what has been shared with me is quite extraordinary.
🔹I don’t take that trust lightly. I respect confidentiality & only share case particulars with consent or where I am otherwise entitled to discuss publicly available material I’ve examined myself.
Why am I doing this?
🔹Because I’ve encountered far too many people who have spent thousands of euro on successive legal teams, only to discover that their instructions weren’t followed, important documents weren’t examined or fundamental questions were never asked.
🔹Some have lost their businesses, homes, livelihoods & years of their lives.
🔹Others are still defending proceedings arising from financial arrangements whose contractual foundations deserve far greater scrutiny.
1/
🔹The answer is quite simple.
🔹I share my experiences & what I’ve learned in the hope that others, particularly Irish lay litigants, will look again at their own cases & ask themselves:
Could this be happening to me?
🔎 Business loans, derivatives & hidden credit lines
🔹Was I told I was simply fixing the interest rate on my business loan, when in fact I was being entered into a complex interest rate derivative / swap with risks & liabilities that were never properly explained?
🔹Was a separate credit line created to accommodate the potential liabilities arising from that swap/derivative, without my knowledge or informed consent?
🔹Was that hidden credit line subsequently treated as a separate debt, even though I never applied for it, signed a loan agreement for it or received the funds?
🔹Was the derivative separated from the underlying business loan, with the bank subsequently seeking to enforce liabilities arising from an arrangement I never understood or knowingly agreed to?
🔹Was my business loan called in, or my property revalued, in circumstances that created or accelerated an alleged default?
🏠 Residential mortgages & mortgage overcharging
These are separate issues from derivatives, but they raise equally important questions.
🔹Was I overcharged interest on my mortgage & have I ever received a proper explanation of how the interest was calculated?
🔹Was I entitled to a tracker mortgage rate that was removed, denied or never properly applied from the outset?
🔹Were increases in my standard variable rate consistent with the terms of my mortgage agreement?
🔹Were incorrect interest rates applied over a number of years, resulting in arrears or an outstanding balance that may not be accurate?
🔹Have I ever independently checked whether the mortgage balance being claimed against me reconciles with the original agreement, interest rates, repayments & account statements?
🔹Did I ever actually sign the mortgage agreement, the loan or restructuring documentation now being relied upon by a bank or credit servicer to enforce the debt?
⚖️ Evidence, reports & court proceedings
And then there are questions that arise across both types of cases.
🔹Did I attend a meeting where important evidence was discussed, only to discover that the subsequent report recorded something entirely different or omitted crucial admissions?
🔹Were important documents overlooked, withheld or inaccurately represented during litigation?
🔹Did the evidence presented to the court accurately reflect the underlying financial transactions & contractual documents?
🔹Were my instructions to my legal representatives actually followed?
These are the kinds of questions I want people to ask themselves.
Yes, I repeat certain points. Deliberately.
Someone reading a post today for the first time may be the very person who needs that information most.
🤝 Trust and consent
🔹I’m very fortunate that so many people trust me with their experiences, including lay litigants, legal professionals and others who have encountered difficulties within our courts.
🔹Some of what has been shared with me is quite extraordinary.
🔹I don’t take that trust lightly. I respect confidentiality & only share case particulars with consent or where I am otherwise entitled to discuss publicly available material I’ve examined myself.
Why am I doing this?
🔹Because I’ve encountered far too many people who have spent thousands of euro on successive legal teams, only to discover that their instructions weren’t followed, important documents weren’t examined or fundamental questions were never asked.
🔹Some have lost their businesses, homes, livelihoods & years of their lives.
🔹Others are still defending proceedings arising from financial arrangements whose contractual foundations deserve far greater scrutiny.
10
51
105
3,412
🔹Today, I will be attending a summit held in memory of Simon Andriesz, whose courage in raising serious concerns about financial misconduct deserves recognition, respect & lasting accountability.
🔹I am honoured to be included in the accompanying report, drawing on my own expeer during Ireland’s parliamentary Inquiry into the Banking Crisis. Please review attachment for further details.
🔹Simon’s tragic death reinforces the urgent need for genuinely independent scrutiny of how financial regulators and other powerful institutions (including @OireachtasNews) treat those who expose wrongdoing.
🔹Whistleblowers are not the problem. The misconduct they expose, the victims left in its wake and the institutional failures that permit the wrongdoing to continue must remain the focus.
🔹I look forward to joining fellow whistleblowers, victims, campaigners and advocates in honouring Simon’s memory and strengthening our collective determination to secure truth, justice & accountability.
🔹I respectfully ask you to share this post to spread awareness. It is relevant to anyone who has borrowed, or intends to borrow, from a financial institution.
@Wftproof @WinkSabee @stevemiddi1 @BlowersIreland @JMcGuinnessTD @kenoflynnTD @Farrell_Mairead @MaryLouMcDonald @SamanthaLaDuc @johnmcdonnellMP @premnsikka @LSRAIreland @LawSocIreland @Muinchille @NiamhParker4 @SimonHarrisTD @MichealMartinTD @andyverity @jameshurley
🔹I am honoured to be included in the accompanying report, drawing on my own expeer during Ireland’s parliamentary Inquiry into the Banking Crisis. Please review attachment for further details.
🔹Simon’s tragic death reinforces the urgent need for genuinely independent scrutiny of how financial regulators and other powerful institutions (including @OireachtasNews) treat those who expose wrongdoing.
🔹Whistleblowers are not the problem. The misconduct they expose, the victims left in its wake and the institutional failures that permit the wrongdoing to continue must remain the focus.
🔹I look forward to joining fellow whistleblowers, victims, campaigners and advocates in honouring Simon’s memory and strengthening our collective determination to secure truth, justice & accountability.
🔹I respectfully ask you to share this post to spread awareness. It is relevant to anyone who has borrowed, or intends to borrow, from a financial institution.
@Wftproof @WinkSabee @stevemiddi1 @BlowersIreland @JMcGuinnessTD @kenoflynnTD @Farrell_Mairead @MaryLouMcDonald @SamanthaLaDuc @johnmcdonnellMP @premnsikka @LSRAIreland @LawSocIreland @Muinchille @NiamhParker4 @SimonHarrisTD @MichealMartinTD @andyverity @jameshurley
4
30
52
804
Lorraine M. Morris retweeted
@paddycosgrave A brave courageous man to call it exactly as it is. The billionaire vested interests, offshored for tax avoidance .
God is there no shame in this country of ours?
God is there no shame in this country of ours?
0
4
41
5,322
Thank you Artur.
I look forward to hearing your words tomorrow.
Please read and share Artur’s vital message below. 👇
I look forward to hearing your words tomorrow.
Please read and share Artur’s vital message below. 👇
TOMORROW I GO TO UK PARLIAMENT
Tomorrow, 2 November, I will walk into the whistleblower summit of the @appgonifandffs on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services.
I have 60 seconds to speak. The event asks why we must protect the wellbeing of whistleblowers. It is of Simon Andriesz @SAndriesz.
I wrote an eight-minute speech and practised it. Then came the message. So many people wanted to speak that we needed to share the time. My slot is now one minute.
Cutting eight minutes to 60 seconds was hard. But I understand. Every person in that room has a story that deserves to be heard.
For my minute, I chose Simon, who spent 35 years working in financial markets.
My own fight with @rsagroup Insurance, @IntactInsurance UK and the Financial Ombudsman Service @financialombuds gets its turn next time. On 2 November, it is about Simon and the disgraceful way @theFCA treated him.
In August, his friend John Robertson @J_Robertson_UK put us in touch. Simon contacted me and we spoke. I wrote about his case and published it on 12 August. It got some attention.
On 23 September, Simon took his own life.
Two days later, I posted about his death on X. That post received more than 700k views. On 4 October, Congressman @RepThomasMassie quoted it, bringing another 800k views. Newspapers picked up the story. It reached people around the world.
Then came the Financial Conduct Authority’s promise of a review. MPs called for an independent investigation. The first question at the FCA Annual Public Meeting was about Simon.
Simon had spent years trying to get the regulator, the courts and the press to listen. After his death, his story reached a worldwide audience. Then came the responses he had needed while he was alive.
That is a disgrace.
Tomorrow, we will talk about protecting whistleblowers’ wellbeing. That starts with how we respond when someone asks us to listen.
My inbox is full of messages from whistleblowers and people who have suffered wrongdoing. Behind each message is a person waiting for someone to take them seriously. A reply takes 2 minutes. For someone who has spent years being ignored, it can mean a lot.
If a whistleblower writes to you, answer them. Make time for the conversation while they are here to have it.
Tomorrow, I have 60 seconds. I will use them to ask people to remember Simon Andriesz, and to listen to those still asking for help.
If this moves you, share his name.
@stevemiddi1 @appgonifandffs @andyverity @jameshurley @MLorrM @Wftproof @JohnCleese @J_Robertson_UK @nw_nicholas @sharmilaxx @johncock_wayne @TransparencyTF
0
8
26
531
Lorraine M. Morris retweeted
And the cycle continues. Years later, the FCA fined Lloyds £64 million for abusing over 500,000 mortgage victims. The regulator turned a blind eye for years while innocent people lost everything. Same story, different chapter: the system protects the banks, never the people.
HE WARNED THE BANK. THE BANK COLLAPSED. YOU PAID THE BILL.
Paul Moore (@Paul_R_Moore) was Head of Group Regulatory Risk at Halifax Bank of Scotland. His literal job was to spot danger. In 2004, he spotted it. He told the board that HBOS was lending recklessly, growing too fast, l time bomb. They thanked him by sacking him.
KPMG was brought in to investigate his concerns. KPMG concluded everything was fine. The Financial Services Authority @TheFCA whose deputy chair was HBOS chief executive James Crosby, agreed. Nothing to see here.
Four years later, HBOS collapsed. Lloyds (@LloydsBank / @LBGplc) was pushed into a shotgun merger to absorb the wreckage, then needed a £20.5 billion taxpayer bailout to survive it. James Crosby eventually handed back his knighthood and forfeited part of his £25 million pension. He was not prosecuted. Nobody was.
Paul Moore went to the Treasury Select Committee in 2009 and laid out exactly what had happened. It caused, as one journalist put it, shockwaves through the British establishment. It also caused addiction, depression, and suicidal episodes for Moore himself.
He spent years warning anyone who would listen that the system was broken. He wrote a book called Crash Bank Wallop. He died in September 2020.
The men who built the disaster got pensions. The man who tried to stop it got destroyed.
If you think whistleblowers are protected in this country, Paul Moore's life is your answer.
Sources: @BBC, @guardian, @Channel4News | @Wikipedia | @TransparencyTF
1
4
7
254
👇👇👇
Part 4
🔹I also want to acknowledge and commend former TD, Joe Higgins, who opposed the publicly reported threat to withdraw my salary in July 2015, while I was serving as an Expert Adviser to the Banking Inquiry.
🔹That threat, splashed across the media, followed an extraordinary episode in which the Central Bank’s General Counsel had warned me that I was expected to agree all my proposed questions in advance.
🔹Consider the implications of that for an independent parliamentary inquiry investigating the conduct of the banks and their regulator.
🔹An expert adviser tasked with scrutinising regulatory failures was being subjected to pressure over the questions she could ask FROM THE REGULATOR followed by the public threat of financial consequences.
🔹Former Deputy Joe Higgins recognised the importance of resisting that pressure, and I remain grateful for his intervention.
🔹It is particularly significant that, just weeks later, former Deputy Higgins was questioning Peter Fitzgerald about the three investment-bank reports warning Anglo of weaknesses in its funding model and asking why those reports were missing from the Inquiry’s evidence book - tying to another protected disclosure made by me - dismissed in public by Senan Allen while acknowledged in private in interview transcripts in which he deemed asking witnesses questions without having read the evidence as “crazy”.
🔹Parliamentary scrutiny cannot be independent if those charged with conducting it face pressure over their questions or threats to their livelihoods.
🔹And Joe Higgins deserves recognition for standing up for that principle.
@TomClonan @BlowersIreland @JMcGuinnessTD @kenoflynnTD @PearseDoherty @MaryLouMcDonald @stevemiddi1 @SimonHarrisTD @EUCssrMcGrath @michaeldarcy @Wftproof @ArturNadol7566 @SamanthaLaDuc @MichealMartinTD
0
2
12
654
I have noted that @EUCssrMcGrath is very enthusiastic about ensuring predictability in relation to EU company law.
Reliance on Ireland enforcing legislation did not work out very well for the SMEs & property owners who were fraudulently sold derivatives, the homeowners & buy to let inveged on their mortgages or those facing entities with no legal standing in Irish courts who have submitted “affidavits” in attempts to repossess assets to which they have no entitlement.
My response below👇- please consider sharing and engaging on your own experiences.
Reliance on Ireland enforcing legislation did not work out very well for the SMEs & property owners who were fraudulently sold derivatives, the homeowners & buy to let inveged on their mortgages or those facing entities with no legal standing in Irish courts who have submitted “affidavits” in attempts to repossess assets to which they have no entitlement.
My response below👇- please consider sharing and engaging on your own experiences.
0
13
21
527
Lorraine M. Morris retweeted
Arini’s $7 Billion Fund Down Over 20% and Dumping the Easy-to-Sell Stuff Just to Cover Margin Calls, according to WSJ
“Arini’s roughly $7 billion flagship fund has lost over 20% so far this year as of mid-October and is set to lose more by the end of the month, some of the people said….
The fund has been selling parts of its more easy-to-trade holdings in recent months.
Proceeds from some of the trades went to meet margin requirements tied to investment in credit default swap indexes and other trades, people familiar with the matter said…”
wsj.com/finance/invest…
“Arini’s roughly $7 billion flagship fund has lost over 20% so far this year as of mid-October and is set to lose more by the end of the month, some of the people said….
The fund has been selling parts of its more easy-to-trade holdings in recent months.
Proceeds from some of the trades went to meet margin requirements tied to investment in credit default swap indexes and other trades, people familiar with the matter said…”
wsj.com/finance/invest…
11
42
167
16,666
Mortgage securitisations, credit servicers and repossessions: what did the Central Bank know?
🔹A series of industry letters issued by the Central Bank of Ireland between 2019 and 2022 raises profoundly troubling questions about the sale, securitisation, servicing and enforcement of residential mortgages in Ireland.
🔹On 20 August 2019, the Central Bank wrote separately to credit institutions, credit servicing firms and retail credit firms, expressly acknowledging that its supervisory activities had uncovered “specific instances that could give rise to potential customer detriment.”
🔹What exactly had the regulator discovered?
🔹The letters required
-complete customer files to be transferred,
-proper due diligence by purchasers, preservation of contractual terms and interest-rate entitlements,
-correction of historic errors and
-accurate reporting to the Central Credit Register.
🔹The Central Bank also required boards to provide formal assurances by 18 October 2019 that their systems, controls and procedures were sufficiently robust to protect borrowers.
🔹Then, on 25 June 2021, the regulator revisited these concerns in the context of banks withdrawing from the Irish market.
🔹It emphasised the need to identify and remediate errors before mortgage transfers, clarify responsibility for historic errors and conduct formal consumer impact assessments.
🔹This raises an extraordinary series of questions.
🔹Were mortgage portfolios sold or securitised while containing incorrect balances, unresolved overcharging, incomplete contractual records or other material deficiencies?
Answer: Yes
🔹Were loans subsequently transferred between multiple credit servicers without the complete documentation necessary to establish the correct sums contractually due?
Answer: Yes
🔹Were borrowers pursued through repossession proceedings on the strength of balances derived from defective or incomplete records?
Answer: Yes
🔹And where mortgages were securitised, were the entities presenting themselves before the courts able to establish, through reliable evidence, their legal entitlement to enforce the relevant loans and security?
🔹Answer: No however before certain judges, this didn’t appear to matter.
🔹That last question is distinct from the consumer-protection obligations addressed in the letters, but it is no less important.
🔹The Central Bank’s correspondence demonstrates that the regulator had recognised serious risks associated with mortgage transfers and had demanded assurances from the institutions involved.
🔹What supervisory action from @centralbank_ie followed?
🔹And, perhaps most importantly, were any findings concerning inaccurate mortgage accounts, defective records or unresolved borrower detriment ever examined for their potential implications for repossession proceedings?
🔹We are dealing with people’s homes, not merely entries on financial institutions’ balance sheets.
🔹The public deserves to know whether mortgage portfolios were transferred, administered and enforced on the basis of records that were complete, accurate and capable of independent verification.
🔹 The reality on the ground:
Borrowers engaged in substantive disputes concerning
(a) the accuracy of mortgage balances
(b) unlawful interest charges or overcharging
(c) the ownership and enforceability of their mortgages, or
(d) the conduct of banks and credit servicers can find themselves dealing with a succession of different entities, sometimes while litigation remains unresolved. Why?
The administration of justice depends upon the integrity of the evidence placed before our courts. Regulatory assurances are apparently meaningless.
Sources: Central Bank of Ireland industry letters, 20 August 2019; Consumer Protection Expectations in a Changing Retail Banking Landscape, 25 June 2021; subsequent correspondence concerning retail bank withdrawals, 2022.
🔹A series of industry letters issued by the Central Bank of Ireland between 2019 and 2022 raises profoundly troubling questions about the sale, securitisation, servicing and enforcement of residential mortgages in Ireland.
🔹On 20 August 2019, the Central Bank wrote separately to credit institutions, credit servicing firms and retail credit firms, expressly acknowledging that its supervisory activities had uncovered “specific instances that could give rise to potential customer detriment.”
🔹What exactly had the regulator discovered?
🔹The letters required
-complete customer files to be transferred,
-proper due diligence by purchasers, preservation of contractual terms and interest-rate entitlements,
-correction of historic errors and
-accurate reporting to the Central Credit Register.
🔹The Central Bank also required boards to provide formal assurances by 18 October 2019 that their systems, controls and procedures were sufficiently robust to protect borrowers.
🔹Then, on 25 June 2021, the regulator revisited these concerns in the context of banks withdrawing from the Irish market.
🔹It emphasised the need to identify and remediate errors before mortgage transfers, clarify responsibility for historic errors and conduct formal consumer impact assessments.
🔹This raises an extraordinary series of questions.
🔹Were mortgage portfolios sold or securitised while containing incorrect balances, unresolved overcharging, incomplete contractual records or other material deficiencies?
Answer: Yes
🔹Were loans subsequently transferred between multiple credit servicers without the complete documentation necessary to establish the correct sums contractually due?
Answer: Yes
🔹Were borrowers pursued through repossession proceedings on the strength of balances derived from defective or incomplete records?
Answer: Yes
🔹And where mortgages were securitised, were the entities presenting themselves before the courts able to establish, through reliable evidence, their legal entitlement to enforce the relevant loans and security?
🔹Answer: No however before certain judges, this didn’t appear to matter.
🔹That last question is distinct from the consumer-protection obligations addressed in the letters, but it is no less important.
🔹The Central Bank’s correspondence demonstrates that the regulator had recognised serious risks associated with mortgage transfers and had demanded assurances from the institutions involved.
🔹What supervisory action from @centralbank_ie followed?
🔹And, perhaps most importantly, were any findings concerning inaccurate mortgage accounts, defective records or unresolved borrower detriment ever examined for their potential implications for repossession proceedings?
🔹We are dealing with people’s homes, not merely entries on financial institutions’ balance sheets.
🔹The public deserves to know whether mortgage portfolios were transferred, administered and enforced on the basis of records that were complete, accurate and capable of independent verification.
🔹 The reality on the ground:
Borrowers engaged in substantive disputes concerning
(a) the accuracy of mortgage balances
(b) unlawful interest charges or overcharging
(c) the ownership and enforceability of their mortgages, or
(d) the conduct of banks and credit servicers can find themselves dealing with a succession of different entities, sometimes while litigation remains unresolved. Why?
The administration of justice depends upon the integrity of the evidence placed before our courts. Regulatory assurances are apparently meaningless.
Sources: Central Bank of Ireland industry letters, 20 August 2019; Consumer Protection Expectations in a Changing Retail Banking Landscape, 25 June 2021; subsequent correspondence concerning retail bank withdrawals, 2022.
1
11
19
428
Someone asked me about collateral shortfalls in banking.
🔹The simplest way to demonstrate concealment of a collateral shortfall is to prove that a bank represented collateral as available when its own records showed that it was already pledged, unavailable or insufficient to meet its obligations.
🔹You need three things: the true position, the position represented, and evidence that the bank knew the difference.
🔹A very simple worked example:
Imagine Bank A had €1 billion of securities on its books.
It tells its regulator that these securities are available to support emergency borrowing.
But the underlying records reveal…..
Collateral position
Securities recorded by the bank is €1,000m
But
Already pledged to Bank B −€600m
Already pledged to Bank C −€200m
Actually free/unencumbered €200m
Reported as available €1,000m
‼️Overstatement of available collateral is therefore €800m‼️
🔹The simplest way to demonstrate concealment of a collateral shortfall is to prove that a bank represented collateral as available when its own records showed that it was already pledged, unavailable or insufficient to meet its obligations.
🔹You need three things: the true position, the position represented, and evidence that the bank knew the difference.
🔹A very simple worked example:
Imagine Bank A had €1 billion of securities on its books.
It tells its regulator that these securities are available to support emergency borrowing.
But the underlying records reveal…..
Collateral position
Securities recorded by the bank is €1,000m
But
Already pledged to Bank B −€600m
Already pledged to Bank C −€200m
Actually free/unencumbered €200m
Reported as available €1,000m
‼️Overstatement of available collateral is therefore €800m‼️
1
8
17
642
The three documents that could establish concealment
Document A:
The collateral register
The internal treasury record shows that €800 million of the €1 billion was already pledged to other banks/counterparties.
Document B:
The representation
A liquidity report, borrowing application or regulatory return states that €1 billion was available as unencumbered collateral.
Document C:
Evidence of knowledge
An email, ALCO minute or risk report shows that “responsible officers” knew the €800 million was already pledged before the misleading representation was made.
Together, those documents could establish not merely a collateral shortfall but a knowing misrepresentation, provided the records refer to the same date, legal entity, assets and definition of availability.
Document A:
The collateral register
The internal treasury record shows that €800 million of the €1 billion was already pledged to other banks/counterparties.
Document B:
The representation
A liquidity report, borrowing application or regulatory return states that €1 billion was available as unencumbered collateral.
Document C:
Evidence of knowledge
An email, ALCO minute or risk report shows that “responsible officers” knew the €800 million was already pledged before the misleading representation was made.
Together, those documents could establish not merely a collateral shortfall but a knowing misrepresentation, provided the records refer to the same date, legal entity, assets and definition of availability.
2
1
4
223
3/
The straightforward test:
🔹Follow one security - you do not necessarily need to reconstruct the bank's entire derivatives book.
➡️Start with one identifiable security - for example, a government bond with a unique ISIN.
Check whether:
🔹The bank pledged it to Counterparty A.
🔹The bank subsequently reported that same security as freely available, despite the first pledge remaining in force.
🔹The bank then obtained funding or regulatory recognition based on that representation.
🔹Internal communications demonstrate that the bank knew the security was unavailable.
🔹A second pledge is not automatically unlawful.
🔹The critical issue is whether the bank possessed the necessary rights and whether it accurately reported the resulting restrictions and obligations.
The straightforward test:
🔹Follow one security - you do not necessarily need to reconstruct the bank's entire derivatives book.
➡️Start with one identifiable security - for example, a government bond with a unique ISIN.
Check whether:
🔹The bank pledged it to Counterparty A.
🔹The bank subsequently reported that same security as freely available, despite the first pledge remaining in force.
🔹The bank then obtained funding or regulatory recognition based on that representation.
🔹Internal communications demonstrate that the bank knew the security was unavailable.
🔹A second pledge is not automatically unlawful.
🔹The critical issue is whether the bank possessed the necessary rights and whether it accurately reported the resulting restrictions and obligations.
0
0
2
78
🔹I’m wondering if @ecb LaGarde when French Finance Minister was given materially misleading accounts of French banks’ true financial condition.
🔹In light of European banks obvious use of structured loans and derivatives, repeat restructuring of loans to disguise serious balance-sheet impairments - all the while transferring losses on to their customers to generate income.
🔹The manipulation of benchmark interest rates produced dizzying “windfall profits” for banks across Europe, but unlawfully.
🔹The demise of Weil Gotshal & alarmingly under the advice of Davis Polk is connected & curious in my opinion.
🔹 Between them, Weil Gotshal and Davis Polk represented or advised major financial institutions including
American International Group (AIG), Bank of America,
CIT Group,
Citibank,
Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank,
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC),
Goldman Sachs,
JPMorgan Chase,
Kaupthing Bank,
Lehman Brothers,
Macquarie,
Morgan Stanley,
UBS.
🔹Their crisis-related mandates also extended beyond private financial institutions to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the US Treasury, European insolvency administrators and court-appointed rehabilitation authorities.
🔹Notably, Davis Polk advised the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and US Treasury on AIG's 2008 rescue, while Weil Gotshal represented AIG and Lehman Brothers in major crisis-related proceedings.
@Wftproof
🔹 The question is whether Lagarde was told that temporary wholesale funding difficulties were being addressed when the underlying exposures included substantially more serious collateral and solvency problems.
🔹So whether, as French Finance minister, LaGarde had a complete picture of the French banks' liquidity, solvency and derivatives-related collateral obligations.
🔹In light of European banks obvious use of structured loans and derivatives, repeat restructuring of loans to disguise serious balance-sheet impairments - all the while transferring losses on to their customers to generate income.
🔹The manipulation of benchmark interest rates produced dizzying “windfall profits” for banks across Europe, but unlawfully.
🔹The demise of Weil Gotshal & alarmingly under the advice of Davis Polk is connected & curious in my opinion.
🔹 Between them, Weil Gotshal and Davis Polk represented or advised major financial institutions including
American International Group (AIG), Bank of America,
CIT Group,
Citibank,
Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank,
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC),
Goldman Sachs,
JPMorgan Chase,
Kaupthing Bank,
Lehman Brothers,
Macquarie,
Morgan Stanley,
UBS.
🔹Their crisis-related mandates also extended beyond private financial institutions to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the US Treasury, European insolvency administrators and court-appointed rehabilitation authorities.
🔹Notably, Davis Polk advised the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and US Treasury on AIG's 2008 rescue, while Weil Gotshal represented AIG and Lehman Brothers in major crisis-related proceedings.
@Wftproof
🔹 The question is whether Lagarde was told that temporary wholesale funding difficulties were being addressed when the underlying exposures included substantially more serious collateral and solvency problems.
🔹So whether, as French Finance minister, LaGarde had a complete picture of the French banks' liquidity, solvency and derivatives-related collateral obligations.
1
5
19
528
The Treatment of Litigants in Person in Ireland’s Courts Raises Serious Questions
🔹A recent visit to the High Court Central Office left me deeply concerned about how ordinary citizens are treated when engaging with our courts.
🔹I attended casually dressed, wearing a baseball cap. The visit had been prearranged, but I was availing of the “walk-in kiosk” method.
🔹My initial reception was decidedly abrupt, discourteous and distinctly unwelcoming.
🔹Then something remarkable happened.
🔹The staff member assisting me opened my court file (which remained in their possession at all times) and evidently recognised from its contents that I am a solicitor.
🔹Their demeanour changed immediately and dramatically. Suddenly, there were smiles, courtesy and a noticeably more accommodating attitude.
[Thank you to my parents to @ucddublin @LawSocIreland @KingsInns @sra_solicitors @NYSBA]
🔹The only apparent difference for the about turn appears to have been the discovery of my professional status.
🔹This raises troubling questions about how members of the public, particularly litigants in person unfamiliar with court procedures, are treated.
🔹Access to justice begins at the public counter, not merely at the courtroom door.
🔹The Courts Service is a publicly funded institution. Courtesy, impartiality and respect should never depend upon professional qualifications, connections or financial means.
🔹We are constantly reminded that citizens must respect the administration of justice. But respect must be reciprocal, and public confidence must be earned.
🔹 And, as anyone who knows me will appreciate, I have never had much of an appetite for “two-faced behaviour”.
🔹 Witnessing both faces appear on the same side of a public counter was distasteful - not to mention the further faces outside the Court Services elicited from the discussion.
🔹Life is far too short for such performances & karma has a rather longer memory than most of us.
@SamanthaLaDuc @NiamhParker4 @Wftproof @kenoflynnTD @JMcGuinnessTD @OCallaghanJim @alomohan @ArturNadol7566 @stevemiddi1 @BankConfidenti1
🔹A recent visit to the High Court Central Office left me deeply concerned about how ordinary citizens are treated when engaging with our courts.
🔹I attended casually dressed, wearing a baseball cap. The visit had been prearranged, but I was availing of the “walk-in kiosk” method.
🔹My initial reception was decidedly abrupt, discourteous and distinctly unwelcoming.
🔹Then something remarkable happened.
🔹The staff member assisting me opened my court file (which remained in their possession at all times) and evidently recognised from its contents that I am a solicitor.
🔹Their demeanour changed immediately and dramatically. Suddenly, there were smiles, courtesy and a noticeably more accommodating attitude.
[Thank you to my parents to @ucddublin @LawSocIreland @KingsInns @sra_solicitors @NYSBA]
🔹The only apparent difference for the about turn appears to have been the discovery of my professional status.
🔹This raises troubling questions about how members of the public, particularly litigants in person unfamiliar with court procedures, are treated.
🔹Access to justice begins at the public counter, not merely at the courtroom door.
🔹The Courts Service is a publicly funded institution. Courtesy, impartiality and respect should never depend upon professional qualifications, connections or financial means.
🔹We are constantly reminded that citizens must respect the administration of justice. But respect must be reciprocal, and public confidence must be earned.
🔹 And, as anyone who knows me will appreciate, I have never had much of an appetite for “two-faced behaviour”.
🔹 Witnessing both faces appear on the same side of a public counter was distasteful - not to mention the further faces outside the Court Services elicited from the discussion.
🔹Life is far too short for such performances & karma has a rather longer memory than most of us.
@SamanthaLaDuc @NiamhParker4 @Wftproof @kenoflynnTD @JMcGuinnessTD @OCallaghanJim @alomohan @ArturNadol7566 @stevemiddi1 @BankConfidenti1
9
25
70
1,439
Judicial Misconduct
🔹England reprimands a High Court judge. Ireland has some very uncomfortable questions to answer.
🔹On 29 October 2026, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in England and Wales published findings concerning High Court judge Mrs Justice Naomi Ellenbogen, who received a formal reprimand for serious judicial misconduct arising from persistent delays in delivering judgments.
🔹Five judgments had been delayed by between eight and thirteen months when complaints were made.
🔹The investigation established repeated failures to honour commitments to litigants and senior judges, despite substantial judgment-writing time having been afforded.
🔹Crucially, the investigation recognised the harm caused to litigants, damage to the reputation of the judiciary and erosion of public confidence in the administration of justice.
🔹Now consider Ireland 🇮🇪
🔹England reprimands a High Court judge. Ireland has some very uncomfortable questions to answer.
🔹On 29 October 2026, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in England and Wales published findings concerning High Court judge Mrs Justice Naomi Ellenbogen, who received a formal reprimand for serious judicial misconduct arising from persistent delays in delivering judgments.
🔹Five judgments had been delayed by between eight and thirteen months when complaints were made.
🔹The investigation established repeated failures to honour commitments to litigants and senior judges, despite substantial judgment-writing time having been afforded.
🔹Crucially, the investigation recognised the harm caused to litigants, damage to the reputation of the judiciary and erosion of public confidence in the administration of justice.
🔹Now consider Ireland 🇮🇪
2
10
29
901
5/
🔹Where disputed loan ownership, contractual entitlements, contradictory affidavits, accounting discrepancies or the credibility of sworn evidence are central to the proceedings, the distinction between correcting an error of law and prematurely determining disputed facts is critical.
🔹If X six issues were sufficiently substantial to warrant a plenary hearing in the considered judgment of a High Court judge, their wholesale elimination on appeal demands a particularly clear and compelling explanation.
🔹The authority of a three-judge appellate panel is not a substitute for evidence.
🔹Nor does appellate finality necessarily establish that the underlying factual controversies have been satisfactorily resolved.
🔹The essential question is whether the appellate court applied the correct legal principles or effectively foreclosed the very process necessary to establish the facts.
🔹These concerns go directly to the relationship between judicial independence, procedural fairness and accountability.
🔹Where disputed loan ownership, contractual entitlements, contradictory affidavits, accounting discrepancies or the credibility of sworn evidence are central to the proceedings, the distinction between correcting an error of law and prematurely determining disputed facts is critical.
🔹If X six issues were sufficiently substantial to warrant a plenary hearing in the considered judgment of a High Court judge, their wholesale elimination on appeal demands a particularly clear and compelling explanation.
🔹The authority of a three-judge appellate panel is not a substitute for evidence.
🔹Nor does appellate finality necessarily establish that the underlying factual controversies have been satisfactorily resolved.
🔹The essential question is whether the appellate court applied the correct legal principles or effectively foreclosed the very process necessary to establish the facts.
🔹These concerns go directly to the relationship between judicial independence, procedural fairness and accountability.
1
3
7
102
6/
🔹The Ellenbogen investigation demonstrates that judicial misconduct equals serious failures affecting litigants and public confidence may themselves justify disciplinary scrutiny.
🔹That does not mean every questionable judgment constitutes misconduct.
🔹Errors of law ordinarily belong within the appellate process.
🔹But allegations concerning judicial conduct, as distinct from disagreement with legal conclusions, should not escape appropriate scrutiny merely because they arise in the course of proceedings.
🔹If persistent delays in delivering judgments warrant formal disciplinary sanction, what scrutiny should apply where documented concerns arise about the treatment of sworn evidence, procedural fairness and the premature elimination of genuinely triable issues affecting people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods?
🔹Ireland needs meaningful transparency concerning judicial complaints, including the nature of allegations rejected at admissibility, the treatment of documentary evidence and the effectiveness of available remedies.
🔹It also needs far greater scrutiny of the evidential practices of institutional litigants whose affidavits underpin financial enforcement proceedings.
🔹Judicial independence is indispensable. But it cannot become a shield against legitimate examination of judicial conduct.
🔹Respect for the judiciary is earned through independence, impartiality, demonstrable integrity and accountability.
🔹The question is not simply whether justice is being administered.
🔹It is whether the administration of justice is itself being subjected to the scrutiny it demands of everyone else.
🔹The Ellenbogen investigation demonstrates that judicial misconduct equals serious failures affecting litigants and public confidence may themselves justify disciplinary scrutiny.
🔹That does not mean every questionable judgment constitutes misconduct.
🔹Errors of law ordinarily belong within the appellate process.
🔹But allegations concerning judicial conduct, as distinct from disagreement with legal conclusions, should not escape appropriate scrutiny merely because they arise in the course of proceedings.
🔹If persistent delays in delivering judgments warrant formal disciplinary sanction, what scrutiny should apply where documented concerns arise about the treatment of sworn evidence, procedural fairness and the premature elimination of genuinely triable issues affecting people’s homes, businesses and livelihoods?
🔹Ireland needs meaningful transparency concerning judicial complaints, including the nature of allegations rejected at admissibility, the treatment of documentary evidence and the effectiveness of available remedies.
🔹It also needs far greater scrutiny of the evidential practices of institutional litigants whose affidavits underpin financial enforcement proceedings.
🔹Judicial independence is indispensable. But it cannot become a shield against legitimate examination of judicial conduct.
🔹Respect for the judiciary is earned through independence, impartiality, demonstrable integrity and accountability.
🔹The question is not simply whether justice is being administered.
🔹It is whether the administration of justice is itself being subjected to the scrutiny it demands of everyone else.
0
1
8
89