THE INTERESTS of Nama would not be dissimilar to those of a commercial bank, a High Court judge has said in a ruling dismissing a petition for protection from Liam Carroll’s Zoe Group.

Mr Justice Frank Clarke said that it was “impossible” to speculate on the view Nama might take in relation to the group’s total bank loans of €1.3 billion should it be in existence over the duration of Zoe’s two-year survival plan.

Mr Justice Clarke said there was no evidence to show “the attitude likely to be adopted by Nama” to the group’s bank loans. The judge noted that in excess of 50 per cent of the group’s loans are “likely to be covered by the Nama scheme should it come into force”.

“The overall interests of Nama would be, at least in general terms, not dissimilar from those of a commercial bank,” the judge said.

“It would be owed money by Zoe. It would wish to recover as much of the money concerned as it could. It is likely to be motivated in its policies and actions by whatever it believes is likely to maximise the chances of recovering as much money as possible.”

The judge said it was “highly likely” to substantially exceed the proposed two-year timescale for the group’s survival.

He said that, having regard to the timescale within which Nama might operate, or other factors, he could not or should not express any opinion on whether it might view “the best course of action somewhat differently from a commercial bank”.

Speaking yesterday before the ruling, Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said he “very much” welcomed the decisions of the courts to reject Zoe’s bids for protection.

“They have clarified the law for us and they have certainly removed a substantial obstacle to the implementation of Nama,” he said, adding that the courts would see further actions by developers.

The courts had put focus on the Government’s position, Mr Lenihan said, and that Nama would not bail out developers.