Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

If one takes the same example, someone has €100,000 of unsecured debt because of a €100,000 write-down. Let us assume there is a 65% veto or something that approximates that figure. The person in question owes €15,000 to the credit union, €10,000 to another bank through a car loan and also might have something else outstanding on a credit card. All of this is less than the 65% or whatever of what actually is outstanding because €100,000 is quite a significant sum of money. It would be most unlikely that someone would be unsecured to that sum. AIB, as part of the resolution process, states it is will give a 100% haircut on that €100,000 because it has the veto and actually can do that. Does that mean the credit union, the credit card and the other bank would take that hit because AIB was now engaging a veto against them?