Quote Originally Posted by Stanley 2 View Post
Banks were lending funds so fast it was not possible to perfect the security held against the borrowings beyond the title deeds of the property/lands, the speculative part of a deal, usually covered by an l/g was not completed as assets were not specified in support, in many cases no extra assets actually existed as in this case of Fingleton/Scully.

For Fingers to declare the loans non-recourse is quite unreal and the Board of INBS have declared it was in his remit, talk about covering your ass.
I would have thought any self-respecting Judge would fall about laughing at that. So far, it's the borrowers who have been brought to court.