Nama secures €35m order on loans

Nama has secured summary judgment orders for a combined total of nearly €35m against a solicitor, a property company, and a businessman over unpaid property loans.

A Nama company brought the proceedings against Paul O’Brien, a solicitor with an address at Courtbrack Avenue, South Circular Rd, Limerick; Oyster Developments Ltd, with registered offices at The Courtyard, Killarney, Co Kerry, and David Crowe, a businessman, of Tullig Spa, Killarney.

At the Commercial Court yesterday, counsel for Nama, Bernard Dunleavy, sought summary judgment orders against all three defendants.

Only Mr O’Brien was represented and his counsel indicated he was not opposing the application.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he would enter judgment for €11.5m against Mr O’Brien. After finding service was properly effected on the other defendants, he also entered judgement for €11.5m against the company and for €11.9m against Mr Crowe.

Given the material before the court, there was no basis to oppose the agency’s application, the judge remarked.

In court documents, Nama outlined the proceedings related to a credit facility provided by AIB in 2008 to Mr O’Brien and Oyster on terms including that a 2006 guarantee provided by Mr Crowe for repayment of the liabilities of those two borrowers would be continuing security.

Nama acquired those and other loans in 2010 and brought the proceedings after demands for repayment of the loans were not met. The 2008 loan facility and 2006 guarantee formed part of a group of associated loans and security documents relating to the defendants and their assets which had transferred to Nama, it said.

The transferred loans related to a total group of 87 assets including commercial properties, shopping centres, residential developments, development land and residential properties, Nama said.

A business plan for the assets that was provided to Nama in May 2011 by Mr O’Brien was reviewed but rejected in Dec 2011, after which a decision was taken to call in the loans, Nama said.

Demand letters relating to the loan facility and guarantee were issued in January but Nama said the defendants were given a reasonable time to meet those, in a context where the agency was aware they were in straitened circumstances.

While Nama had issued 22 demands against the defendants relating to various facilities, it did not make business sense, and would be “oppressive” of the defendants, to pursue all those claims, the agency also said.