Moritz group asks for stay on judgment

Three companies in the Dublin-based Moritz Group have asked the High Court to grant a stay for three months on registration of orders requiring them to repay over €172m to Nama.

The agency is opposing the stay application.

A full hearing as to whether Nama is entitled to judgment for an additional sum of about €135m will be held later.

Nama brought proceedings seeking summary judgment orders for €137.6m against Maplewood Developments, €95.3m against Moritz Holdings, and €74.6M against Rumbold Builders over unpaid loans advanced by AIB, Bank of Ireland and Anglo Irish Bank, now the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation.

Nama acquired the loans on dates from October to Dec 2010. The companies separately owe about €280m to Ulster Bank.

At the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr Justice Peter Charleton was told the three companies were consenting to summary judgment for over €172.4m but wanted a stay for three months.

The companies claim a stay would help save the jobs within the group and allow them realise and maximise the value of assets.

Eoin McCullough SC, for Nama, said there was consent to summary judgment orders for €70m for Maplewood, €27.8m for Moritz Holdings and €74.6m for Rumbold Builders, all with registered offices at Firhouse, Dublin 24.

It was further agreed the claim for judgment for the balance of the monies sought by Nama would be determined at a full hearing at a later date of the agency’s claim, counsel added.

Outlining Nama’s reasons for opposing the stay application, counsel said a business plan submitted for the Moritz Group was rejected by Nama in July 2011.

Nama was not satisfied the proposal would meet its objectives, including reducing debt and achieving optimum property management and realisation, he said. The group agreed conditions for support with Nama in Oct 2011, counsel said.

The group ultimately rolled back from the agreement, counsel said. Nama appointed statutory receivers last January.

John Gleeson SC, for the Moritz Group, said it feared the value of certain assets which it planned to dispose of would be affected unless a stay was granted.

If summary judgment was granted without a stay, liquidators would be appointed over these assets.

The group also feared the lack of a stay could adversely effect another company in the group, Moritz Trading Ltd, a builders suppliers employing 175 people.

Mr Gleeson said the group was selling its stake in a telecommunications company for €4m. The appointment of a liquidator could adversely affect that process, counsel added.

The hearing continues.