The response to Parliamentary Question No. 248 of 5 February 2013 sets out the information received from each of the covered institutions in relation to the question posed. There were, also, two additional cases initiated against the Minister for Finance by holders of subordinated debt which were inadvertently omitted from that answer. Details of these cases are set out in tabular form below. The Minister for Finance made a statement in relation to the court action initiated against the Minister for Finance, Ireland and the Attorney General by Abadi and others on 3 June 2011. A copy of the statement is attached to this response. AIB was not a defendant to Abadi’s claim although it was a notice party to a claim made in the same proceedings by another bondholder for a limited purpose. Any confusion caused by the response to Parliamentary Question No.248 is regretted.
Cases
|
Proceedings
|
Date Commenced
|
Plaintiffs/Applicants
|
Defendant/
Respondent
|
Jurisdiction
|
Case Withdrawn/
Struck Out
|
|
Abadi & Co. Securities Limited v. The Minister for Finance, Ireland and The Attorney General
The High Court 2011/114 MCA and The High Court 2011/4118P
|
April 2011
|
Abadi & Co. Securities Limited
|
The Minister for Finance, Ireland and The Attorney General
|
Ireland
|
3 June 2011
|
|
Aurelius Capital Master Limited, ACP Master Limited, Aurelius Convergence Master Limited v. The Minister for Finance – Notice Party AIB
The High Court 2011/114 MCA
|
April 2011
|
Aurelius Capital Master Limited, ACP Master Limited, Aurelius Convergence Master Limited
|
The Minister for Finance
AIB was a Notice Party, not a Defendant
|
Ireland
|
1 July 2011
|
The covered institutions have supplied the following information in response to your questions.
PTSB:
PTSB have informed me that no legal actions have been initiated by the holders of subordinated or senior bonds in respect of PTSB.
AIB:
AIB has informed me that one claim has been initiated by a New York based entity. It commenced litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against AIB arising out of the Liability Management Exercise in May 2011.
The claim was dismissed by the New York courts in August 2012 on the grounds that New York was not the appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring proceedings. All relevant disclosures in respect of this case are publicly available through New York District Court website www.nysd.uscourts.gov.
BOI:
BOI have informed me that in its published financial reports, shareholder circulars and prospectuses, which are all available on the Bank of Ireland website, Bank of Ireland provides appropriate disclosures concerning material litigation related issues.
IBRC:
IBRC have informed me of the following cases and details:
|
Proceedings
|
Date Commenced
|
Plaintiff/ Applicants
|
Defendant/ Respondent
|
Jurisdiction
|
|
Assenagon Asset Management v IBRC 2012/2264; HC11C01320
|
15 April 2011
|
Assenagon asset Management SA
|
IBRC
|
England & Wales
|
|
Enid Investment Corporation v IBRC 2012/2989; HC12B03156
|
3 Aug 2011
|
Enid Investment Corporation
|
IBRC
|
England & Wales
|
|
Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund LP and Fir Tree Value Master Fund LP v Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited (formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Plc) Civil Action No.11/CV/0955
|
9 March 2011
|
Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund LP and Fir Tree Value Master Fund LP
|
IBRC
|
United States District Court – Southern District of New York
United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.
|
