Moves may be made against developers Paddy McKillen and Gerry Maguire to recover loans given to them as part of the "Maple 10" investors in the former Anglo Irish Bank, the High Court has been told.
Mr McKillen and Mr Maguire were among 10 customers of Anglo who were part of a deal in 2008 to slash businessman Seán Quinn's stake in the troubled bank which later became the State-owned Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), since put into special liquidation by the Government.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan granted an application on behalf of Kieran Wallace, one of the special liquidators to IBRC, to renew summonses against Mr McKillen and Mr Maguire in relation to proceedings in which the bank can seek judgment against the two men arising out of the loans given to them in 2008 and 2009, as part of the Maple 10 deal.
The court heard the loans of the other eight Maple 10 members had been taken over by Nama.
Michael Collins SC, for the IBRC liquidator, said the summonses against Mr McKillen and Mr Maguire, which last for 12 months, had been issued last year and were due to expire in the couple of days.
“In the interests of justice and as part of the liquidator’s continuing efforts to recover monies loaned by Anglo, his client was seeking the renewal so steps may be taken against the defendants in the light of recent information which has come to light as a result of criminal trials involving Anglo executives,” counsel said.
The application was made on an ex-parte basis (only IBRC represented). Mr Justice Gilligan said he would grant a six-month extension of the summonses in the interests of justice.
He was also extending the summonses on the basis of a previous court decision which found such extensions can be granted for “other good reasons” than difficulties in serving summonses on defendants.
IBRC had not moved earlier as it was awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings and of a Supreme Court appeal, issued last March, in relation to Seán Quinn's family, he said.
He was satisfied the liquidator had presented to the court good reason as to why the summonses had not been served previously and that they should be renewed.
The judge had also regard to the fact, as argued by IBRC, if the summonses were not renewed the defendants would have a defence to them as being out of time based on the Statute of Limitations.
It was open to the defendants to apply to have the renewal order set aside, the court also heard.
