No plan to sell assets of developer involved in legal challenge - Nama

THE NATIONAL Asset Management Agency has told the High Court it has “no current intention” to sell properties of developer David Daly in Britain and Ireland over which it has appointed receivers.

Mr Daly and his children have challenged the agency’s appointment of a receiver over properties after Nama took over personal loans of about €457 million held by him and his children with AIB.

Last Friday Mr Daly, his daughter Joanne and son Paul initiated proceedings to prevent Nama from insisting on repayment of those €457 million loans or from appointing a receiver over properties.

The case – taken against Nama, the State and AIB – was returned to yesterday when Mr Justice Roderick Murphy agreed to an application by Michael Cush SC, for the Dalys, and with the consent of James Doherty, for Nama, to list it on Thursday for mention. Prior to that, both sides will exchange affidavits. Mr Doherty said Nama had no current intention to sell properties over which it had appointed a receiver and Mr Daly would receive 24 hours’ notice of any change in that position.

The Dalys claim they are meeting all their obligations concerning the AIB loans but Nama had operated on the basis the loans were on-demand facilities that could be called in any time. Nama called in all the loans last Wednesday and gave them until close of business on Thursday to repay, they complained. Nama moved on Friday to appoint Jim Hamilton of BDO Simpson Xavier receiver over a number of Dublin properties, including a building on St Stephen’s Green and Airside Business Park on the city’s northside, which are held by Mr Daly and his family and are not part of his residential construction business, Albany Homes.

Nama is also seeking to appoint Shay Bannon and Sarah Rayment of BDO in Britain as receivers to a number of London properties, including two on Bond Street, one of which houses Louis Vuitton’s flagship store in the city, and the other occupied by Mulberry.

The Dalys are seeking a declaration that credit facilities entered into by them with AIB in July 2007 and February 2008 and transferred to Nama last year are not repayable on demand.

Nama’s decision to demand repayment is unreasonable and contrary to their constitutional rights, they claim. They also contend certain provisions of the Nama Act are invalid, unconstitutional and in breach of the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

In an affidavit, David Daly, Estuary House, New Street, Malahide, said the plaintiffs wanted to restrain Nama taking any steps to seek repayment of the plaintiffs’ credit facilities with AIB and/or to enforce any obligations related to those facilities, including the appointment of a receiver.

Mr Daly said the loans were fully performing with interest being repaid. Enforcement would have “disastrous consequences” for the plaintiffs who were not responsible for AIB’s difficulties, he said.