Lawyers for IBRC have challenged David Drumm's appeal of his US bankruptcy refusal.
The former Anglo Irish Bank CEO is appealing the decision of a US bankruptcy court to refuse him discharge from his debts totalling €10.5m, blaming the professional advice he received as the reason why he did not tell the court about cash and property transfers he made to his wife.
In legal documents filed tonight, lawyers for IBRC and the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee Kathleen Dwyer have said that the original findings of Judge Frank Bailey were correct.
Earlier this year, the US bankruptcy court in Boston found that Mr Drumm had "knowingly and fraudulently" sought to keep assets from his creditors by transferring cash and other property, totalling around €1m, to his wife.
In January, Judge Frank Bailey refused the former banker bankruptcy protection from his debts of more than €10m, finding Mr Drumm "not remotely credible" as a witness.
In the legal papers today, lawyers for IBRC and Ms Dwyer, argue that although Mr Drumm blames his advisers for his failure to disclose the transfers to his wife, he bears responsibility for the omissions.
They claim that he "acted with fraudulent intent" to put the assets beyond the reach of his creditors.
They say he did not omit the transfers based on advice from anyone, and they say that in his appeal paperwork he "cannot point to any advice he received from his advisers upon which he reasonably relied".
In the 59-page document, they say that "he alone is responsible for the dishonesty that compelled a denial of his discharge".
They say his entire approach to his application "mocks" the basic principle of discharge from bankruptcy.
In the original judgment from Judge Bailey, the court found 30 counts that merited a refusal of his application for protection from his debts.
The group of lawyers representing IBRC and the court trustee say Mr Drumm only refutes 22 of these in his appeal document and "has nothing to say" about eight of the counts.
They say that Mr Drumm ignores the trial judge's "credibility determinations and the deference they are owed" and "fails to grapple with his lies and unreliable testimony" and instead asks the Massachusetts District Court to reweigh the evidence.
Mr Drumm maintained during the trial hearing in May and June of 2014 that he had been the victim of an "honest mistake" and furthered that explanation in his own appeal papers lodged with the US District Court last month.
In relation to that claim, the lawyers say: "Drumm claims that he must be a victim of a series of
innocent mistakes because he never would have thought that he could get away
with such sweeping wrongdoing while the Trustee and the Bank were closely
investigating his affairs. But people who lie so readily and easily often do so with
indifference to the consequences of their dishonesty".
On Judge Bailey's finding that he found Mr Drumm "not remotely credible", lawyers for IBRC and Ms Dwyer say that it is "of critical importance" that Mr Drumm "neglects to mention" that point in his appeal submission.
In Mr Drumm's own 57-page legal appeal submission to the Massachusetts District Court lodged in the middle of April, he stated the bankruptcy court "strained to make virtually every finding and inference possible" against him.
He argued that he at all times did what he was advised to do by his counsel and he highlighted three main points, which he believes merit a reversal of Judge Bailey's decision.
He has claimed the bankruptcy court blamed him rather than his legal advisors for not declaring the transfer of cash and assets to his wife; that he was penalised for not calling his accountants to testify at the trial, and that that the bankruptcy court was wrong to find that he still had an interest in the money he had transferred to his wife to buy the family home and pay the family bills.
Mr Drumm's lawyers now have two weeks to reply to the arguments put forward by the bank and the court-appointed trustee.
