A DAUGHTER of One51 investment group chief executive Philip Lynch has denied giving a “very, very hazy” versions of events leading up to the signing of documents on a €25 million loan whose terms are now in dispute.
Judith Whelan also denied an element of “reconstruction or construction” in her account of events on February 8th, 2007, the day she signed the AIB loan documents on behalf of her family to ensure consistency with their claim that they signed up to the loan on the basis that it involved no personal recourse to them.
She said her father raised the non-recourse issue in two phone conversations with her on February 7th, 2007, the day before the loan deal was signed. Mr Sreenan, for LK Shields Solicitors, was continuing his cross-examination of Ms Whelan in the action by Philip and Eileen Lynch and their children – Judith, Philippa, Therese and Paul – seeking declarations they are not personally indebted to AIB for the €25.3 million sum.
The case arises in relation to the 2006 purchase of 86 acres at Kilbarry, Waterford, with a view to development. The €25.3 million loan facility was advanced for that deal. The lands are now said to have a value of about €4 million.
The action is also against two firms of solicitors – LK Shields and Matheson Ormsby Prentice. The family claims LK Shields represented their interests in relation to the AIB loan and they are entitled to an indemnity against it and/or Matheson Ormsby Prentice, which represented Mr Conlan’s interest, in relation to any claim by AIB against them. The defendants denied the claims against them.
Ms Whelan agreed she had a phone conversation with Imdaad Suleiman of LK Shields Solicitors, after her first conversation with her father on February 7th, 2007.
Mr Sreenan said Mr Suleiman’s note of that conversation did not record Ms Whelan making any reference to the loan having to be non-recourse and put to her the absence of any reference to a no-recourse requirement was because her father had not mentioned it. Ms Whelan disagreed, said her father had made clear it was to be no-recourse or not at all and she was at the time waiting for the final loan terms.
Mr Sreenan said Mr Suleiman’s note of a phone conversation on February 7th 2007 with Robert Burns – who was involved in the Waterford deal on behalf of the Lynchs – referred to AIB possibly wanting joint and several clauses to apply to Mr Conlan, Philip Lynch and all the Lynchs and to Mr Burns saying that “would not be a problem”.
If Mr Burns said that, it would be “utterly irreconcilable” with what Mr Lynch had told Ms Whelan earlier on the phone, counsel put to Ms Whelan. She was not privy to that phone conversation and understood that was not what Mr Burns had meant.
The case continues before Mr Justice Michael Peart.
