Nama trying to bully and bulldoze me over €77m -

Businessman Harry Crosbie has accused Nama of trying to "bully" and "bulldoze" him and will ask the courts next week to try and stop it enforcing a €77m judgment against him.

Michael McDowell, for Mr Crosbie, told Mr Justice David Keane yesterday he wants a stay on the judge’s decision that Nama is entitled to the €77m summary judgment. The stay is sought pending the outcome of separate proceedings initiated by Mr Crosbie against the agency after it moved for that summary judgment.

Mr Crosbie claims he has a “solemn” and enforceable agreement with Nama, set out in an August 2012 letter from his solicitor, Liam McCabe. In consideration for giving Nama security in various assets, Mr Crosbie claims the alleged agreement restrains certain actions by the agency, including moving against his family home, his son’s home, and a business carried on by his wife.

The fact Nama is applying on Monday to have the hearing of Mr Crosbie’s proceedings fast-tracked in the Commercial Court is another move in a “well-orchestrated campaign” by the agency to “bully” his client, Mr McDowell said. Nama had publicly “thrown one brickbat after another” at Mr Crosbie, he added.

His side would consent to have Mr Crosbie’s case fast-tracked but believed Nama should have not made the application until the court decided whether a stay should be granted on enforcement and execution of the €77m judgment ruling made last week.

Fixing next Tuesday to hear the stay application, Mr Justice Keane said it seemed the issues being raised were “somewhat novel”.

Paul Sreenan, for Nama, said it would not be taking any steps in the interim beyond seeking on Monday to have Mr Crosbie’s case fast-tracked in the Commercial Court and seeking a date for hearing a motion by Nama regarding that case.

Nama moved to enforce the €77m loans after Mr Crosbie failed to disclose substantial assets to the agency when first asked to do so, Mr Justice Keane was told last May.

A letter from solicitors for Nama said full and complete disclosure was a requirement of its January 2012 memorandum of understanding with Mr Crosbie and his “lack of candour” in dealings with Nama was “simply not acceptable”, especially when Mr Crosbie and related companies collectively owed Nama over €420m.

Nama said it wanted judgment so it could secure that against assets owned by Mr Crosbie, here or abroad, not secured in favour of any other party. Nama believed there was equity in the Vicar Street music venue and Mr Crosbie owns valuable antiques and an interest in unencumbered properties in France. It also claimed he voluntarily transferred €2.9m between 2008 and 2011 and Nama would be better placed to investigate this if it got judgment.