Nama decided to enforce loans of €77 million against businessman Harry Crosbie because he failed to disclose substantial assets, including three apartments in the south of France, when asked to provide details of all assets held by himself and his family, the Commercial Court heard yesterday.
Mr Crosbie incorrectly told Nama he had no uncharged assets when the agency provided €32 million in taxpayer's money to complete the Point Village development when, in fact, Mr Crosbie did hold unencumbered assets, Mr Justice David Keane was told.
Mr Crosbie also misappropriated monies from companies which should have gone to Nama, Paul Sreenan SC, for Nama, said. Nama also said it was concerned about valuations provided by Mr Crosbie including the contents of his home and other assets.
Companies linked to Mr Crosbie owe Nama €431 million.
Mr Crosbie in an affidavit disputed these claims. He said: “Since these were my last remaining assets I had to be very prudent and careful so that my other creditors could not and would not challenge any transfers of these assets.”
Nama said it was also concerned to learn of payments of €740,000 and €650,000 from Mr Crosbie to his wife Rita around the time Nama took over his loans, its counsel said.
Mr Crosbie also failed to disclose significant cash gifts to his children, counsel said.
It was in those and other circumstances that Nama decided to enforce the loans and was claiming entitlement to summary judgment for some €77 million against Mr Crosbie, Mr Sreenan said.
Bona fide defence
There were no grounds for Mr Crosbie's claim that Nama had agreed in August 2012 it would not move to enforce against him and he has no real or bona fide defence to the claim for judgment, counsel added.
Mr Crosbie claims he paid Nama €35 million following an agreement that included selling his stake in the 02 arena.
In his affidavit, he said he reached a “comprehensive agreement” with the agency in August 2012 where Nama “agreed that it would no longer have legal recourse to my other remaining assets, including my interest in my family home, my son’s home and a business carried on by my wife”.
He believed that Nama agreed to “not pursue me by way of enforcement and/or bankruptcy and secondly they would endeavour to use their good offices to advance a similar arrangement with my other banks”.
In correspondence with Nama, solicitors for Mr Crosbie said he had concluded a “solemn” agreement with Nama in August 2012 but reneged on it since then, “for reasons known only to you.” Nama repeatedly denied any such agreement. The case continues.
