The Supreme Court has given six companies controlled by Liam Carroll the temporary protection of the courts until next Tuesday.
The proceedings followed a High Court ruling on Friday when Mr Justice Peter Kelly refused to appoint an examiner to six companies which owe eight banks €1.2 billion. The Supreme Court said it would allow a full hearing of the appeal against the High Court ruling next Tuesday at 11am.
Today Liam Carroll's six companies successfully applied for a stay to remain under the protection of the courts.
Michael Cush, senior counsel for Mr Carroll's companies, said the High Court judgement on Friday had not attached sufficient weight to the level of pre-planning which went into the application for examinership. He said seven lenders had agreed to provide finance to discharge unsecured creditors and fund ongoing developments.
He added that the banks had agreed to a moratorium on repayment of debt for a number of years. Mr Cush said the High Court had ignored the factor that the market could not absorb the amount of property which would be made available if there were no examinership.
ACCBank wants original ruling affirmed
Chief Justice John Murray said there was a constitutional right of appeal and the normal situation was that a stay was granted where an appeal was brought promptly and there was a stateable appeal.
He was satisfied the companies had arguable grounds of appeal but, he added, that was not a reflection on the merits of the appeal. It was evident in this case that the appeal itself would be 'moot' (pointless) if a stay were not granted.
ACCBank, whose demand last month for repayment of €136m loans led to the application for protection, had opposed the stay. Rossa Fanning, for ACC, said it had initially adopted a position of 'guarded neutrality' to examinership but now, having reflected on the High Court decision, wanted the Supreme Court to affirm that decision.
At the Commercial Court last Friday, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he was refusing the application on the basis that he was not convinced that the companies had proven that they met the legal test of having a reasonable prospect of survival.
While expressing some misgivings, the judge did grant a stay until today on his refusal to extend the court's protection, so that the companies could lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Vantive Holdings, Villeer Developments, Peytor Developments, Caragh Enterprises Ltd, Parlez International Ltd and Jersey registered Morston Investments, were all seeking the court's protection, after ACC began proceedings to have them wound up.
Last week, Mr Justice Kelly said he had the gravest reservations about the projections put forward by the companies in their application, which he said were devoid of reality. He said that even if he had been satisfied that the conditions for the test had been met, he would be disinclined to extend the court's protection to the companies, as he believed there was an artificial exercise under way to assist shareholders whose investments had been unsuccessful.
