Ruling due on Carroll examinership appeal

The Supreme Court will rule later this evening on property developer Liam Carroll's appeal of last month's High Court decision not to appoint an examiner to several companies in his Zoe building group.

Carroll's companies in the appeal have claimed High Court Judge Peter Kelly erred in a number of ways when refusing examinership to the firms, which have borrowings from financial institutions of €1.1bn.

The Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Murray, Ms Justice Susan Denham and Mr Justice Nial Fennelly are expected to rule on the appeal after 5pm today.

The petition to have an examiner appointed to Carroll's firms was brought by Vantive Holdings which, with Jersey-registered Morston Investments Ltd, are the parent companies of around 50 companies known as Zoe Developments.

The four other companies involved - Villeer Developments, Peytor Developments, Caragh Enterprises Ltd and Parlez International Ltd - were presented with demands from ACC for repayment of loans.

Mr Justice Kelly had refused court protection to the six companies. The Judge described the firm's survival proposals as being "fanciful". ACC Bank, whose demand last month for repayment of €136m loans led to the application for protection, had opposed the appeal.

In its appeal the company claims that an examiner should be appointed in light of the level and type of support the proposal has received from seven of the eight banks that the firms owes money to .

Mr Michael Cush SC for the companies said they had three "very strong" grounds of appeal, including that the examinership application was moved in the "highly unusual" circumstances of the companies having agreed a business plan six months ago with 88% of their banker creditors.

Counsel said that the banks had agreed to provide finance to pay off third party unsecured creditors and for ongoing development and, "most extraordinarily," to put a moratorium on repayment of the debt for two or three years.

Lyndon McCann SC for ACC, who had previously adopted a position of guarded neutrality toward the examinership when the matter was before the Supreme Court, said his clients are opposed to the Supreme Court allowing the appeal and appointing an examiner.