Nama says €100,000 IBRC overcharge to John Flynn should be seen next to €21m debt
Nama lawyer says if cheque is written, less the overcharging, ‘we can all go home’
Belfield Office Park: The Flynns dispute a demand for repayment of some €21 million issued by Nama over loans made by Anglo Irish Bank to members of the Flynn family related to the Belfield Office Park development in Dublin. Photograph: Cyril Byrne
A claim that IBRC, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, overcharged property developer John Flynn by some €100,000 on loans has to be seen in the context of the National Assets Management Agency’s claim that Mr Flynn and his family owe the agency some €21 million, the Commercial Court was told yesterday.
Rossa Fanning, for Nama, said yesterday that a cheque for the €21 million, less the disputed €100,000, should be written by the Flynns “and we can all go home”.
Jarlath Ryan, for Leona Flynn, said IBRC special liquidator Kieran Wallace had, during recent court proceedings brought by Mr Flynn in Delaware in the US, admitted there was overcharging by IBRC and his side wanted to study the transcript of those proceedings. Mr Fanning said what was happening in Delaware was not material to these proceedings.
The exchanges happened as Mr Justice Peter Kelly was addressing various pre-trial matters yesterday in litigation involving the Flynns and Nama.
The Flynns dispute a demand for repayment of some €21 million issued by Nama over loans made by Anglo Irish Bank to members of the Flynn family related to the Belfield Office Park development in Dublin.
In her proceedings against a Nama company, Ms Flynn is seeking declarations she has no beneficial interest in Belfield Office Park following a 2008 deed transferring her 10 per cent beneficial interest in that property to her husband.
Nama denies her claims and has brought a counterclaim against John Flynn snr, Leona Flynn, James Flynn, John Flynn jnr and Elaine Flynn seeking judgment for some €21 million.
Nama claims Ms Flynn was being dealt with as part of a “Flynn connection” which had “significant debt” spread across AIB, IBRC and EBS facilities. The loans in this case also form part of the “Kelly connection”, related to three other borrower groups, as well as the Flynn borrowers, Nama says.
In autumn 2012, Nama had rejected their business plan.
In its counterclaim, the agency denies Ms Flynn divested herself of an interest in the Belfield property but also pleads that if Ms Flynn did reach an agreement with Anglo permitting her divest her interest in the property as she alleges, any such agreement is unenforceable.
In opposing that counterclaim, the Flynns contend there is no legitimate reason for Nama “targeting” them in circumstances including where the Belfield development was being well-managed.
They allege the “unique” powers available to Nama under the Nama Act are being applied unlawfully, disproportionately and in a biased manner.