Bad blood between Quinn and Anglo 'can't be exaggerated'
THE "extraordinary" bitterness and "bad blood" between bankrupt businessman Sean Quinn and the former Anglo Irish Bank is "impossible to exaggerate", the High Court was told yesterday.
The Quinns' senior counsel Brian O'Moore yesterday argued that the "gloves off" nature of the dispute made it most unlikely that the Quinns would breach court injunctions since that would be expected to bring down a fierce reaction from the bank.
The court statements came as Sean Quinn, his son Sean Quinn Jnr and his nephew Peter Darragh Quinn defend claims that they breached court orders by transferring international property assets beyond the reach of Anglo (now Irish Bank Resolution Corporation).
Mr Quinn's lawyers yesterday said the Cavan man believes the bank was responsible for the reversals in the Quinns' fortunes.
The 65-year-old is driven by anger towards the bank's current management, and the previous management on foot of whose assurances he had invested enormous sums of money, the court was told.
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 masterplan, 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 14 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 that could place the trio in jail if they are found to have breached court orders granted last summer.
The three men were excused from yesterday's court proceedings as Sean Quinn Jnr was getting married.
All three have said the family did take steps to prevent the bank moving against various assets but they deny any such steps were taken after the court orders were made.
Yesterday, Mr O'Moore also addressed in detail 24 matters which, the bank claims, amounted to contempt.
Some of those matters were repetitive and none supported the claims of contempt, counsel argued.
The case continues.