ANGLO IRISH Bank is seeking summary judgment for more than €50 million against a former director and one-time head of the bank’s Irish lending division, Tom Browne, over loans secured on shares in the bank and various property investments.
Mr Browne, Brighton Road, Foxrock, Dublin, has in letters to Anglo claimed that “negligent acts” by the bank and State bodies between late 2007 and January 2009, resulting in the nationalisation of the bank, had led to the collapse of the bank’s shares and to him and others suffering substantial loss and damage as a result.
He claimed that had the then board of the bank and State bodies not engaged in certain courses of action, Anglo would still be a publicly quoted company and his shareholding would be “of material value” to himself and the bank.
Mr Browne has also made a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman alleging he has been singled out among the bank’s customers for discriminatory treatment because of his previous position with the bank.
In letters to Mr Browne, Anglo alleged he had provided it with an original statement of affairs showing a net worth value of minus €9 million. The bank suggested he had not listed more than 14 properties, including his family home in Foxrock, and other assets, including a shareholding in a yacht charter company and an interest in 12 foreign and colonial companies.
Solicitors for Mr Browne alleged the bank was jumping to hasty, unfounded and grossly unfair conclusions.
The solicitors then dealt with the claims about the various properties and noted Mr Browne had transferred his interest in his home in 2008 to his wife.
They also said his interest in various other properties was worthless or mortgaged and further denied he had any interest in many of the properties referred to.
A solicitor for Mr Browne told Mr Justice Peter Kelly at the Commercial Court yesterday that her client consented to have the case fast-tracked but she had no instructions yet whether a defence was being raised or its nature.
Mr Justice Kelly said this was “very unsatisfactory” as the normal practice was for a defendant to indicate from the outset the nature of any proposed defence. The case was adjourned to Friday and Mr Justice Kelly directed that the court must be told if it was proposed to defend the action and, if so, on what basis.
Earlier, Paul Gardiner SC, for Anglo, said there had been discussions between the sides which had proven “unproductive”.
