A CLAIM that Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) overcharged property developer John Flynn some €100,000 on loans has to be seen in the context of the NAMA's assertion that Mr Flynn and his family owe the agency some €21m, the Commercial Court was told today.
Rossa Fanning, for NAMA, said yesterday that a cheque for the €21m, less the disputed €100,000, should be written by the Flynns "and we can all go home".
Jarlath Ryan, for Mr Flynn's wife Leona, said IBRC special liquidator Kieran Wallace had, during recent court proceedings brought by Mr Flynn in Delaware, US, admitted there was overcharging by IBRC and his side wanted to study the transcript of those proceedings.
What was happening in Delaware was not a material issue in these proceedings, Mr Fanning said.
The exchanges happened yesterday when Mr Justice Peter Kelly was addressing various pre-trial matters in litigation involving the Flynns and NAMA. The judge made further directions related to discovery of documents and other matters in the proceedings.
The Flynns dispute a demand for repayment of some €21m issued by NAMA over loans made by Anglo Irish Bank to members of the Flynnn family related to the Belfield Office Park development in Dublin.
In her proceedings against a NAMA company, Mrs Flynn is seeking declarations she has no beneficial interest in Belfield Office Park following a 2008 deed transferring her 10 per cent beneficial interest in that property to her husband.
NAMA denies her claims and has brought a counterclaim against John Flynn Senior, Leona Flynn, James Flynn, John Flynn Junior and Elaine Flynn seeking judgment for some €21m.
NAMA claims Mrs Flynn was being dealt with as part of a "Flynn connection" which had "significant debt" spread across AIB, IBRC and EBS facilities. The loans in this case also formed part of the "Kelly connection", related to three other borrower groups as well as the Flynn borrowers, NAMA said. In autumn 2012, NAMA had rejected their business plan.
In its counterclaim, the agency denies Ms Flynn divested herself of an interest in the Belfield property but also pleads, if Ms Flynn did reach an agreement with Anglo permitting her divest her interest in the property as she alleges, any such agreement is unenforceable.
In opposing that counterclaim, the Flynns contend there is no legitimate reason for NAMA "targeting" them in circumstances including the Belfield development was being well managed. They allege the "unique" powers available to NAMA under the NAMA Act are being applied unlawfully, disproportionately and in a biased manner.