Solicitor Chris McGettigan of PJ Flanagan & Co, Enniskillen, joins Sammy to look at the Quinn case from a legal perspective.

Chris focuses on Patricia Quinn's position: a guarantee for a loan of over 100 million that, he says, she never knowingly signed, sought three months after the money was lent, with no independent legal advice. He goes through the Supreme Court finding that the Anglo loans were illegal but still enforceable, the expert reports put before the court, and how the Quinns' treatment compares with the Maple Ten's.

The conversation also covers David Drumm's conviction, Judge Hardiman's criticism of leaks to the press, Alan Dukes' remarks in the RTÉ documentary, the Quinn Business Retention Company and its shareholding, the request for "retrospective" legal advice, and who Chris believes should be held accountable.

00:00 Intro – Chris McGettigan, PJ Flanagan & Co
01:04 The Quinns and Enniskillen
02:33 2007, CFDs and Anglo
05:06 Was Anglo really a "wild investment"?
06:50 Patricia Quinn and the 100 million loan
09:21 Bankruptcy and the one-line judgment
13:56 Why pursue Patricia?
15:27 Complaints to the Gardaí, Central Bank and regulators
17:43 David Drumm's conviction
20:45 The Maple Ten vs the Quinns
24:04 The Supreme Court: illegal but enforceable
28:13 What the expert reports said
31:33 Alan Dukes
33:06 Leaks to the press and Judge Hardiman
36:24 The Quinn Business Retention Company
38:59 The 2016 consultancy termination
40:07 QBRC's 22% stake and the sale
43:48 Where did the money go? A case for Freedom of Information
45:28 Independent legal advice and "retrospective" advice
49:12 The guarantees argument that was never heard
51:26 Who should be held accountable?
55:42 Budget week aside
57:14 Wrap-up