A battle over the future control of Superquinn, employer of almost 2,700 people, began in the High Court this evening when the company and directors initiated an application aimed at securing the appointment of an examiner to the company.
The directors say the appointment of joint receivers to the company by Bank of Ireland last Monday "spells the end" of its undertaking and represents a "disaster" for its creditors and employees.
They claim the inevitable outcome of receivership and propsed sale to Musgrave Group plc is likely to be substantial involuntary redundancies and trade creditors - owed about €55m - being "burned" while the liabilities of the bank are met.
The bank's move was aimed at enhancing its position as a secured creditor leaving nothing for the unsecured creditors, Michael Cush SC, for the directors, said.
In contrast, they believed examinership would mean an increased likelihood of trasnlating the good core business into long-term sustainable profitability and protect the position of its employees.
They wanted to maintain Superquinn "as a decent place to work where its employees are paid a decent wage" and were committed to avoiding a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions.
Bank of Ireland indicated through its counsel Brian Kennedy it will strongly oppose the examinership petition. It also raised issues whether the petition was brought within the statutory time limits and whether the court was entitled to hear it at all.
Mr Kennedy said the matter was of "crucial" urgency and must be determined as soon as possible. Every day is crucial from the perspective of the company and its continued survival, he said. He was concerned this move would "massively prejudice" the survival of the company, there were contracts in place for a sale and the receivers were very concerned at any steps that could prejudice that and about the effects on the employees and suppliers.
Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan has directed a preliminary hearing next Tuesday on whether the company is entitled to present the petition and if the court is entitled to hear it.
Those issues which will decide whether the company and directors can proceed next Thursday with their application for the appointment of an examiner, which would result in the company securing court protection from creditors while it moves to put in place a survival plan.
The Companies Act requires that applications for examiners must be moved within three days of the appointment of receivers and there is an issue between the sides whether the directors application meets that requirement. the court heard the receivers were appointed at 6.09pm last Monday and today's application was moved about 5.50pm.
The judge made clear that today's application involved only the presentation of the petition for the examinership and court protection has not yet been extended to the company. She granted liberty to seek that protection pending the outcome of next week's hearings.
She also made directions for the advertisement of the hearing of the petition for examinership next Thursday. That hearing is contingent on the decision on the preliminary issues.
