Is it just me…
Aug 24th, 2009 by Donagh
Or is this decision from Judge John Cooke of the High Court absurd?
Outlining the reasons for his ruling today, Judge John Cooke said the court found there are good grounds to give this second petition a hearing.
The court is satisfied that the material now proffered answers the deficiencies identified by the Supreme Court, Judge Cooke said.
He also said Mr Carroll’s withholding of information appears to be motivated by fear of public disclosure that may jeopardise prospects of releasing the companies value in future, he said.
The companies, led by Vantive Holdings and Morston Investments, two firms at the apex of the Zoe group of 51 companies, last week submitted a detailed business plan and property valuations to support their application.
I assume that when the Supreme Court decided to effectively allow for the liquidation of Zoe Developments and affiliated companies that it was aware that such an action would have an effect on the market price of the land and properties which would inevitably be sold at knockdown prices. If the viability of the companies is so tenuous how could the valuations mean anything except if they relate to a market that is inflated? Is the judiciary now acting as NAMA the prequel?
Again, these are just questions. Answers on a postage stamp please.
Can other loan defaulters expect the same treatment?
It’s not just you Donagh. I went on holidays thinking this had all been wrapped up only to return to a sequel. RTE keep refering to the decision to have another crack at the examiner process as “unprecidented” in the history of the state, without really scrutinising why the court saw it fit to break precident.
The stakes here are very high, if ACC win in a timely fashion and Carrolls assets are released on the current market the resultant fire-sale will scare the bejaysus out of the galway refugee tent.
Sometimes if the only possible reason for a judicial delay seems political (so as not to cut NAMA off at the knees) then as Poirot says: The impossible must be possible.
Well that was what I was wondering. Is the judgement really based on the new evidence, like the valuation? I don’t believe it is. Perhaps what is of more significance is the decision of the other banks (basically AIB and BoI) to say that they’ll support Carroll no matter what. It is in their interests to forstall action being taken by ACC. ACC of course have less to lose in terms of the drop in the asset price that liquidation would bring about, but the Irish banks have everything to lose if those assets are dumped on the market before NAMA can buy them up. There’s a good change that it would affect the price that NAMA pays for the assets on their books. This stuff about a ‘the long term economic’ value that is supposed to be calculated is basically the smallest amount of discount that they think they can get away with. There is huge public opposition to NAMA growing. If Carroll’s assets go on firesale and NAMA prices don’t reflect this there will be a proper shit storm.
So the judgement to allow a second crack was political - or at least takes a lot of the above in to account. But what will the judge’s decision on the second application be based on?