The High Court is likely to give its decision on Thursday on a second application for court protection by seven companies which are part of developer Liam Carroll's Zoe Group.
Making his closing arguments in the case today, senior counsel Bill Shipsey who was representing Vantive Holdings and the six other companies, said never before have the interests of the wider Irish community ever been so much to the fore in relation to such an application.
The companies require court protection as ACC Bank is seeking to have them wound up over unpaid debts of €136m.
Mr Shipsey said the evidence now before the court in this second application has more than adequately addressed the insufficiencies the Supreme Court identified in the first application.
He said the companies need the protection of an examiner, as Dutch owned ACC Bank had decided to cut its losses in relation to them, and perhaps in relation to Ireland generally. But he said people working for the companies are not in such a fortunate position.
He said there were a number of compelling reasons why the court should use the discretion it has allowed in the appointment of an examiner - most particularly that the application for protection enjoys the overwhelming support of most of the companies' banks.
Mr Shipsey said support could also be found in the detailed independent accountants' report submitted as part of the application, and it was unlikely such a compendious report has ever been seen by a judge of the High Court before.
Comparing the application to the second Lisbon Treaty referendum, Mr Shipsey said the stakes for Ireland in both cases are very high.
He said in the last referendum, voters had sat on the fence, and in the companies' first application, the banks had sat on the fence.
But he said ACC Bank then found 'Dutch courage' to oppose the petition, which brought the other banks off the fence.
But he said that in taking a view of ACC's opposition to the petition, the judge was entitled to have some doubt for the material basis for the bank's opposition.
Making his closing comments, counsel for ACC Rossa Fanning, said there was no evidence before the court to suggest the bank opposed the petition for anything other than rational commercial reasons. To suggest otherwise, he said, was unfair.
He also claimed it did not make sense for the companies to argue that NAMA is not relevant to their application. He said the loans in question are prime candidates for transfer to the new agency, and there may be a good reason for the supporting banks to want to see those loans transferred into NAMA.
But he said that reason was 'light years away' from the intention behind legislation allowing companies to enjoy protection of the courts.
Mr Justice Frank Clarke said that since last week he had had more time to read the documents on the case than he had expected. As a result, he said he hopes to be able to deliver the judgement in the case on Thursday morning.
