A judge today made summary judgment orders for €13.6 million against former Irish Nationwide Building Society chief executive Michael Fingleton over unpaid developments loans.
Summary judgment for some €12 million was also entered against a Fianna Fáil Senator and two developers over the same loans.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly also described as "extraordinary" Mr Fingleton's failure to include his €27 million pension in a list of assets and liabilities given by him to Ulster Bank.
The pension "eclipsed" all Mr Fingleton's other assets - which totalled more than €10 million and included properties in Dublin, Mayo, Donegal and Wicklow - and it seemed "extraordinary" he had omitted his biggest asset in his hand-written statement of affairs.
The judge made the remark at the Commercial Court today prior to granting Ulster Bank summary judgment for €13.6 million against Mr Fingleton over the unpaid development loans.
Rossa Fanning, for Mr Fingleton, described as a "genuine error" the failure to include reference to the pension in Mr Fingleton's statement of affairs of March last. There was no intention to mislead and the pension details were in the public domain, counsel said.
Counsel did not oppose the summary judgment application but raised issues about defects in the bank's documents and the manner in which it granted the loan facility. The bank appeared to have relied on its perception of Mr Fingleton's worth from media reports, he added.
Brian McGuckian, for the bank, earlier said it became concerned about the loans after receiving a statement of affairs from Mr Fingleton which contained no reference to his pension. The bank was also concerned at an assignment of Mr Fingleton's interest in his family home, valued at €3 million, at Liskillen, Shankill, Co Dublin, to his wife.
Mr Justice Kelly also granted summary judgment for €12 million over the same loans against Fianna Fáil Senator Francis O'Brien, Corwillan, Latto, Castleblayney, and two Co Monaghan property developers, Noel Mulligan, Moyles, Castleshane, and Charles McGuinness, Tully House, Monaghan.
He noted a statement of affairs for Senator O'Brien showed a deficit of some €12.8 million liabilities over assets.
The three had not advanced a defence to the €12 million sum but disputed how the remaining sum of about €1.6 million was arrived that and their liability for that will be decided later. The judge refused an application by all four defendants for a stay on registration and execution of the judgment order in light of continuing negotiations with the bank and hopes planning permissions may enhance the value of the lands.
All four had opposed the proceedings being transferred to the Commercial Court, the division of the High Court which fast-tracks business cases. Their opposition was based on delay by the bank in pursuing its claim and defects in its documents.
The case arose from a €13.2 million loan advanced in 2006 to the four to purchase a 50-acre site at Swellan Upper and Lower, Farnham Road, Cavan. The loan was secured on the site. The bank agreed in June 2008 to increase the loan facility to provide for an interest roll-up and claimed, in June last, the amount outstanding was €13.5 million. A demand for repayment was served in June last.
The court heard negotiations between Mr Fingleton and the bank have continued for some time, including over last weekend.
Mr McGuckian said while interest repayments were made, a number of events had triggered its decision to demand repayment, including net worth statements received from the defendants last March. The bank was especially concerned about the position of Mr Fingleton and had sought clarification but received no response.
The bank was also concerned when it learned in May last Mr Fingleton had assigned his interest in his family home which was at variance with information given to the bank in his net worth statement.
The bank was assured throughout 2009 the lands would be rezoned from residential to commercial but was now concerned about the defendants' ability to achieve that rezoning, counsel said. In all those circumstances, letters of demand issued.
In response to the judge, counsel agreed Mr Fingleton was not a client of the bank's when the monies were loaned and it had not sought net worth statements from the four until some years after the loan issued.
In his decision, Mr Justice Kelly said he was not required to address the bank's "stupidity" entering into such a large loan with someone about whom it knew nothing except his name appeared regularly in the newspapers.
The issue was whether the bank's delay disentitled it to transfer, the judge said. He was satisfied there was a long period of to-ing and fro-ing between the sides and interest payments continued to be made and the bank was entitled to have the case transferred.
The judge then asked the defendants if they were defending the summary judgment application. Mr Fanning and Paul McMorrow, for the other defendants, said they were not but they raised issues about defects in the bank's documents and how it quantified its claim. They also sought a stay on the judgment given continuing negotiations and their hopes that planning permissions may enhance the lands value. The bank opposed any stay.
The judge said the grounds for a stay were not made out and it was up to the bank to decide if it wished to register and execute the judgment.
