The Attorney General has told the Commercial Court that developer Paddy McKillen cannot repay his bank loans.
Mr McKillen is challenging the transfer of his loans into the National Asset Management Agency.
He says the loans are performing and the association with NAMA will damage his business.
But the Attorney General, Senior Counsel Paul Gallagher, said Mr McKillen owed €2bn.
Mr Gallagher said that this was not a sum the developer could pay back today or tomorrow, and Mr McKillen had not given the court any date on which he could pay it back.
Mr Gallagher said some of Mr McKillen's loans have expired, meaning there is an obligation to pay them back.
He said there had clearly been forbearance on the part of the banks, but he said on any common sense analysis of the loans, there was an obligation to repay them.
He said he did not know of anything more fundamental in terms of non-performance and impairment of a loan than the inability to pay back the money you said you would.
He said Mr McKillen wanted NAMA to be held up so he would have an opportunity to obtain finance on loans he was obliged to pay.
Mr Gallagher said all Mr McKillen’s loans were ever doing was covering the interest on the borrowings.
He said Mr McKillen's expert witnesses did not mention this, but accepted that Mr McKillen's loans were performing loans because his income covered the interest repayments.
Mr Gallagher said you did not need legal analysis, just common sense, to see that Mr McKillen's presentation of his case did not stand up for one minute to any common sense analysis.
He said you did not need to be a financial expert to see that the risk was there - the money could not be repaid.
Mr Gallagher said there had been forbearance on the part of the banks because they did not want the fact that these loans were impaired to be on their balance sheets.
Mr Gallagher said Mr McKillen had not revealed that some of his loans had expired and were due to be paid back when he first swore a statement and took this case in July.
He said there should have been full disclosure on a matter as important as this.
Mr Gallagher was responding to a question from Mr Justice Peter Kelly about whether Mr McKillen's affidavit had been deliberately misleading.
Mr Gallagher said there had not been full disclosure - there had been non-disclosure of a material kind and this was a matter of very serious concern.
He said many of the facts had been seriously mis-stated in the affidavit before the court.
Mr Gallagher said that even though Mr McKillen said he had not bought property or development land here since 1998, he had released equity on his 50% interest in the Jervis Street Shopping Centre.
Documents filed in court on behalf of NAMA show that his share of the shopping centre was valued at more than €118 million euro on 1 November 2009 and Mr McKillen's personal debt, which was secured against this share, was €200m.
Mr Gallagher said that Mr McKillen and his experts' idea of the bank-customer relationship had no place in the current environment.
He said he did not accept there would be any adverse effect on Mr McKillen's ability to refinance his loans because of his connection with NAMA.
He said the lenders Mr McKillen would be dealing with would be very sophisticated and would know that NAMA was taking in good and bad loans.
Mr Gallagher said there was no question of NAMA underpaying for bank assets because NAMA would be paying the long-term economic value of assets, which was more than the current market value.
Sworn statements are 'irrelevant'
The Attorney General said that expert statements sworn on behalf of developer Paddy McKillen in support of his challenge to the transfer of his loans to NAMA are irrelevant.
Mr Gallagher said sworn statements, including one by Nobel Prize winner Dr Joseph Stiglitz, do not recognise that the property market is not liquid.
He said they are based on an incorrect premise that is not in the NAMA legislation.
Mr Gallagher said most of Mr McKillen's loans are interest only and make no provision for the repayment of the capital.
He said many of them had expired and were not being repaid.
He said they could not be repaid on the basis of the security provided because the market was illiquid.
Mr Gallagher said Mr McKillen claimed that income from his properties was almost twice the sum needed for interest repayments on his loans. Mr Gallagher said the income did not cover the total sums owing on the loans.
He said Dr Stiglitz had based his definition of a performing loan and 'systemic risk' on a basis that was not in the NAMA act and it was amazing that Dr Stiglitz had based his opinions on a basis that was not consistent with the legislation.
Mr Gallagher said Anglo Irish Bank had had significant difficulties in getting any dialogue with Mr McKillen in relation to his expired loans.
The Attorney General also told the Commercial Court that bank assets were designated as eligible assets to be acquired by NAMA in a way that the Governor of the Central Bank and the Regulatory Authority were consulted by the Minister.
He said it would undermine the whole basis of NAMA, if it were to be suggested that the process would have to take into account the submissions of an individual borrower about the effect of that borrower or his or her commercial interests.
Mr Gallagher said the legislation was trying to regulate the relationship between borrowers and bankers that had contributed to the problem and now had to be rectified at the taxpayer's expense.
The whole purpose of the legislation would be undermined if at the end of the process you did not have a perception that the riskiest assets had been removed from the bank.
He said the commercial interests of a borrower could not outweigh the purpose of the legislation and the European Commission's approval of it.
