Lawyers for Joseph Sheehan, who has a 28% shareholding in the clinic, told the Court of Appeal Mr Sheehan is prepared to pay higher interest to another lender to secure funds for loan redemption so as to be “unchained” from Mr Goodman’s company, Breccia.
The dispute concerns loans made by the former Anglo Irish Bank to Dr Sheehan and his fellow shareholder, Dr John Flynn and Mr Flynn’s company, Benray, for investing in the Dublin clinic.
The loans were later acquired by the National Assets Management Agency which sold them to Breccia.
Earlier this year, the High Court ruled the shareholders were entitled to redeem their loans for figures substantially less than sought by Breccia.
Mr Justice Robert Haughton, having rejected arguments by Breccia concerning surcharges and enforcement costs, ruled Mr Sheehan could redeem his loans for €16.9m, not the some €20m sought by Breccia.
In his separate case, Mr Flynn/Benray won an order allowing them redeem for €9.3m, not some €11m sought by Breccia.
The judge also refused to put a stay on his orders after the shareholders undertook to provide Breccia with a second charge on their shares.
Breccia’s appeal against those orders has been fixed for November 2017.
Pending appeal, Breccia sought a stay from the Court of Appeal which would effectively prevent the shareholders proceeding with loan redemption until the appeal is decided.
Alternatively, it asked the court to direct Mr Sheehan and Mr Flynn/Benray to pay into court sums totalling several million euro to represent the estimated difference between Breccia’s redemption claims and the redemption sums fixed by the High Court.
Having heard argument, Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan gave her reserved decision yesterday in which she concluded that refusing a stay would best minimise any risk of injustice in this matter.
Her conclusion took into account the fact the appeal would not be heard until November 2017 and that the High Court had decided the shareholders were entitled to redeem their loans at the sums fixed.
It was also “a matter of common sense and commercial reality” a stay pending an appeal that might not be determined for up to 21 months might create uncertainty about availability of funding for loan redemption, she said.
If they lost the required funding, that would be a very serious injustice when the High Court had ruled they were entitled to redeem their loans.
It was not disputed by Breccia they were entitled to redeem their loans, the dispute was over the appropriate redemption figure, she said.
The figures being sought by Breccia were “a lot higher” than demands for repayment of the same loans in 2014, she noted.
The balance of justice was also against requiring the shareholders pay the funds sought in court, she ruled.
She accepted arguments by John O’Donnell SC on behalf of Dr Sheehan it would be highly unusual to require a winning party in the High Court to pay sums into court pending an appeal when the High Court found they were not liable for those.
The judge stressed her decision was not concerned with the shareholders’ claims about the motivation and conduct of Breccia.