‘Write €21m cheque and go home’

A claim that IBRC overcharged developer John Flynn €100,000 on loans has to be seen in the context of Nama’s claim Mr Flynn and his family owe the agency €21m, the Commercial Court has heard.

Rossa Fanning, counsel for Nama, said a cheque for the €21m, less the disputed €100,000, should be written by the Flynns “and we can all go home”.

Jarlath Ryan, for Leona Flynn, said IBRC special liquidator Kieran Wallace had, in recent court proceedings brought by Mr Flynn in Delaware, US, admitted there was overcharging by IBRC and his side wanted to study the proceedings’ transcript.

What was happening in Delaware was not a material issue in these proceedings, Mr Fanning said.

The exchanges happened yesterday when Mr Justice Peter Kelly was addressing various pre-trial matters in litigation involving the Flynns and Nama. The judge made further directions related to discovery of documents and other matters in the proceedings.

The Flynns dispute a demand for repayment of €21m issued by Nama over loans made by Anglo Irish Bank to members of the Flynn family related to the Belfield Office Park development in Dublin.

In her proceedings against a Nama company, Ms Flynn is seeking declarations she has no beneficial interest in Belfield Office Park following a 2008 deed transferring her 10% beneficial interest to her husband.

Nama denies her claims and has brought a counterclaim against John Flynn jr, Leona Flynn, James Flynn, John Flynn jr and Elaine Flynn seeking judgment for some €21m.

Nama claims Ms Flynn was being dealt with as part of a “Flynn connection” which had “significant debt” spread across AIB, IBRC and EBS. The loans also formed part of the “Kelly connection“, related to three other borrower groups as well as the Flynn borrowers, Nama said. In autumn 2012, Nama had rejected their business plan.

In its counterclaim, the agency denies Ms Flynn divested herself of an interest in the Belfield property but also pleads, if Ms Flynn did reach an agreement with Anglo permitting her divest her interest in the property as she alleges, any such agreement is unenforceable.

In opposing that counterclaim, the Flynns contend there is no legitimate reason for Nama “targeting” them.

They allege the “unique” powers available to Nama under the Nama Act arebeing applied unlawfully, disproportionately and in a biased manner.