The meetings not noted, the questions unasked

Opinion: What former regulator told Anglo trial

Former financial regulator Patrick Neary, arriving at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to give evidence during the trial of three former directors of Anglo Irish Bank. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Former financial regulator Patrick Neary, arriving at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to give evidence during the trial of three former directors of Anglo Irish Bank. Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill

Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 12:01

On Thursday, March 13th, last, Patrick Neary, the former financial regulator, gave evidence at the Anglo trial about a meeting he had with David Drumm, then chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank on September 12th, 2007.

The meeting occurred on the day after Drumm and Seán FitzPatrick (then chairman of Anglo Irish Bank) had heard from the businessman Seán Quinn that Quinn had amassed, indirectly through contracts for difference (CFDs), a 24 per cent shareholding in the bank, a situation that imperilled the viability of the bank and the Irish financial system as a whole. Arising from that revelation, the Anglo board, according to a number of its members, directed Drumm to meet and inform the regulator of the precarious situation that had transpired. There were two meetings with Neary – on September 12th and September 27th.


No recollection
Neary had no recollection of a second meeting with Drumm. He was asked by a defence counsel, Michael O’Higgins, if he had kept a note of the meeting on September 12th, 2007, with Drumm, the meeting that he did recall. Neary said he had not kept a note of the meeting.

Asked if he kept notes of meetings in the normal course of his business, he said he did but in this case Drumm had asked could he drop in to see him as there was something he wanted to discuss privately. It was “a special meeting of a personal nature that was [what was] conveyed to me before [Drumm] came in”.

Q: “Well I would regard personal nature like I’m having problems at home or where I’m going on holiday. I take it we’re not talking about that?”

A: “Well it allowed for that possibility.”

Q: “It did, did it?”

A: “Yes it did because I had no idea what kind of an issue a chief executive of a financial institution might come and raise with me .”

Q: “Well, could it have something to do with finance – rather than trouble at home ?”

A: “Oh, it could be to do with anything, but I got the impression that – from Mr Drumm – that this was very much an informal chat he wanted to have with me .”

Also in his evidence on Thursday, March 13th, last, he said Drumm expressed concern at that meeting about rumours “about possible holding of CFD positions against shares in the bank . . . That Mr Quinn may have held up to 10 per cent of the shares in the bank by way of CFDs”.

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.