TREASURY HOLDINGS has been granted leave by the High Court to bring a judicial review challenge to the decision in January of the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) to appoint receivers to certain assets controlled by the developer.
The receivers will remain in place until the judicial review is heard, which could take some months. Treasury said it was “pleased” with the High Court’s findings, and appeared to strike a conciliatory tone with Nama.
“We accept and are grateful for the fact that we have continued to operate over the past two years with the support of the Government, its agencies and the taxpayer,” Treasury said.
“We know that any arrangement that allows the company to continue and play a role in rebuilding the Irish economy must reflect that, and that the terms of any agreement must be designed to satisfy the Government, its agencies and taxpayers.”
Treasury said there was “scope” for two overseas investors – Hines and Macquarie – which have made bids for its assets “to improve on these”. Alternatively, bids could be secured from others.
A spokesman for Nama reiterated its position on Treasury.
“The agency appointed receivers to certain assets owned by Treasury Holdings and a number of related companies because we believe that this is the course of action that is most likely to deliver the best financial return for the taxpayer.”
The court noted Treasury is insolvent with overall debts of €2.7 billion. Nama acquired €1.7 billion of those loans in 2010 and the loans called in amounted to more than €1 billion.
While granting leave yesterday to Treasury and 22 related companies for judicial review, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan stressed she was not expressing any definite view on the legal and factual issues raised by the group, other than it had met the necessary threshold of raising “substantial” issues to be tried.
The judge said Nama was entitled to proceed with an application seeking a fortified undertaking for damages from Treasury founders Richard Barrett and John Ronan and/or security for costs.
Paul Sreenan, senior counsel for Nama, said it will consider that issue and outline its position when the case is mentioned before the court again next Tuesday.
In her lengthy judgment, Ms Justice Geoghegan found Treasury had raised substantial issues for determination by the court, including whether Nama breached its duty to notify Treasury of the decision of December 8th, 2011, to enforce the loans and to give it an opportunity to be heard prior to that decision being taken.
However, she ruled Treasury had not made out a substantial case that Nama had acted for an improper purpose or in bad faith.
The judge has adjourned the matter to Tuesday. Under the Nama Act, the court will have to weigh up the legal costs of the six-day leave application, which are expected to be substantial.
An application to have the full hearing of the judicial review fast-tracked by the Commercial Court is expected. Both sides indicated they regarded the issue as urgent.
