Dunnes fail to stop Nama lawyers retaining fraud expert

Lawyers for Sean Dunne and his wife, Gayle Killilea-Dunne, failed in their bid yesterday to prevent Nama’s legal team from adding an expert attorney on fraudulent transfers during a hearing at Stamford Superior Court.

The former ‘Baron of Ballsbridge’ is fighting a case against him and his wife in the courts in Connecticut, where the couple owns two properties.

Nama, which is owed €185m by Mr Dunne, claims he fraudulently transferred a half-share in an apartment in Geneva, Switzerland, to his wife more than three years ago and that she subsequently used his money to develop the properties in Greenwich, Connecticut.

The couple, meanwhile, maintained that Mr Dunne gave his wife just over €10m after their first child was born in 2005 when he was still financially solvent. They have also argued that the agency has no jurisdiction in US courts when it comes to the Geneva property transfer.

Louis Bonsangue, lawyer for Ms Killilea-Dunne, was thwarted in his objection to Tom Curran, a Massachusetts-based partner at the McCarter & English law firm which is representing Nama.

Thomas Rechen, for Nama, pointed out that Mr Curran had been advising on the case since 2012 and was a member of the Massachusetts bar with experience handling a number of cases related to fraudulent transfers of money,

“We believe that the complimentary experience that Attorney Curran brings to bear adds to the efficiency of the administration and prosecution of this case,” said Mr Rechen.

Mr Bonsangue said bringing in another counsel from another state was unnecessary but Judge Barbara Brazzel-Massaro said she could not find any good reason to prevent the appointment of Mr Curran and denied the motion.

Mr Rechen also sought to address “mounting discovery issues”, accusing the defence team of employing a “slow play”, a charge refuted by Mr Bonsangue.

Nama had been granted discovery of documents dating to 2008 detailing Ms Killilea-Dunne’s sources of income, information concerning assets and loans, and also her role in several companies as well as documentation relating to her US immigration status.

There was also lengthy legal argument about two other individuals and a law firm who have been named on the lawsuit.

Nama is claiming that John Slane, Thomas Heagney, and the law firm Heagney, Lennon & Slane, acted improperly as transferees of assets.

“They are alleged to have participated in Sean Dunne’s scheme,” Mr Rechen argued. “There is no reason to treat trustees differently from other transferees if in fact they are the recipients.”

Mr Bonsangue denied that any of the parties was ever a transferee and insisted they should not be part of the counts.

One unresolved issue concerning evidence requested by the defence team had the judge sending the lawyers away to try and work out a private resolution that may or may not force another brief hearing tomorrow.

Meanwhile, both sets of legal teams are also due back in court on Apr 4.