The case against David Drumm

Ever wonder where stories like this originate? Says Simon Carswell:

From September 2008, as the Irish banking crisis deteriorated, Ms Drumm opened 15 accounts in eight banks in her sole name. Cash was transferred to the couple’s joint accounts or her own accounts, the trustee has claimed.

Mr Drumm has yet to respond to a litany of allegations made by the trustee and Anglo Irish Bank in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Ms Dwyer said in a new complaint filed in the US court that she intends to sell Mr Drumm’s home in the Boston suburb of Wellesley, the property at Stage Neck Road in Cape Cod purchased for $4.2 million and his former home in the Abington estate in Malahide.

She claimed that Ms Drumm gave her husband “a fictitious loan” of $210,000 which was sourced from his earnings. The loan was “a sham transaction” to invest in Mr Drumm’s new business in the US to qualify for a temporary visa, and the funds were used as “a personal piggybank” to spend on his personal finances and “to disguise and conceal the transfers made to Mrs Drumm”.

But how about reading the original document? The document that outlines in extraordinary detail the transfers, amounts, the timeline, the names, the dates – words and phrases like “insider loans”, “improper”, “concealed”, “surreptitious negotiation” and “fraudulently” – all alleged by the bankruptcy official.

I’ve gone and bought the particular document, among others:

2 thoughts on “The case against David Drumm”

  1. Is there a mistake by the Trustee on page 4 (document page 6) para 11 where she says

    ““While the 2008 Facility Letter appears to provide that the loan is nonrecourse the Debtor has testified throughout these proceedings that the loan was always intended to be recourse”

    Since the loan was apparently advanced by Anglo to David to purchase shares in Anglo and the value of those shares is effectively zero after nationalisation, then wouldn’t it be in David’s interest to maintain the loan was nonrecourse, which would mean that Anglo couldn’t pursue David for anything other than the now worthless shares? why would David argue that loan was recourse?

Comments are closed.