David Drumm asks for trial to be postponed again

It was “set in stone”, a date for the bankruptcy trial of former Anglo Irish chief executive David Drumm, more than three years after he first filed for protection from his creditors.

But now Drumm has asked for a further extension, as his lead lawyer is attending his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah the weekend before the May 19 trial date.

His main creditor, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, objects, claiming the date for the start of the expected week-long trial had been set after a long discussion between the parties.

And IBRC, through its lawyers, also criticised Drumm for allegedly being “difficult, disorganised, incomplete and slow” with the production of documents ahead of the trial.

Drumm, who stepped down as chief executive of Anglo Irish in December 2009, filed for bankruptcy in the United States in October 2010, after failing to come to an agreement to pay back loans to the bank.

He listed debts of $14.2m, the bulk of which is owed to the IBRC, and assets of $13.9m, including a multi-million dollar pension.

After a series of hearings in 2011, both the IBRC and Trustee Kathleen Dwyer filed objections to the discharge of Drumm’s debts.

They claimed the ex-bank executive “fraudulently” tried to hide transfers of cash and assets and asked for a trial to decide whether he be allowed walk free or clear of his debts or be burdened until all have been paid off.

Seven trial dates have been set, then postponed, while there was a 15-month period to October last year when there was little movement in the case.

The May date was agreed at a hearing last October.

In a motion, Drumm asked for a short postponement, from May 19 to any day after May 22, as his lawyer David Mack’s daughter has her Bat Mitzvah on May 17. Mack, in an affidavit, said he was not at the October hearing and only realised it clashed with the “once in a ... lifetime” religious celebration some time after.

He said there was a significant task to perform ahead of the celebration and he would not be able to devote time to the trial in the days leading up to its scheduled start. He said it was at his request the trial be postponed, not his client’s.

Mack added: “For reasons I am not permitted to say due to alleged confidentiality concerns, the approximately 15-month period of inactivity in this action was due entirely to IBRC.”

Lawyers for IBRC described that claim as “not remotely accurate”.