Couple oppose Nama demand for extra security for loans

A couple have claimed demands by the National Assets Management Agency requiring them to provide additional security for continuing loan facilities could have an adverse impact on their businesses.

Jarlath and Lorraine Sweeney, Ashleigh Falls, Newtown, Enniskerry, Co Wickow, are shareholders in several companies involved in property and catering and also have shares in hotels including the Esplanade and Wilton Hotels in Bray. Some 200 jobs are involved, the court heard.

The couple obtained loans from Anglo Irish Bank in 2009, totalling approximately €25 million, which were acquired by Nama in 2010. Assets of companies in their control were provided as security for the loans.

They say they cannot comply with Nama’s demands to provide extra security on an unencumbered asset – the Summerhill House Hotel, in Enniskerry, owned by companies in which Ms Sweeney is the principal shareholder.

Nama’s demand is unlawful, disproportionate and unreasonable, the couple say.

Yesterday, their lawyers told the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, Nama's demands have left the couple in fear for the future of the workers employed in the companies of which they are shareholders.

In proceedings against Nama and National Asset Loan Management Ltd, the couple want a number of declarations including they cannot be compelled to providing the extra security sought.

They also want injunctions preventing Nama bringing enforcement action against them for any purported non compliance with the demand for extra security.

Mr Justice Kearns granted the ex parte applicaiton (one side only represented) for leave to bring the action and returned the matter to early next month.

The couple claim they have co-operated with Nama since their loans were acquired and have paid all the interest due on the loans but, despite their best efforts, their relationship with Nama has become “completely confrontational”.

They claim business plans submitted by them were rejected without explanation by Nama.

They also claim Nama took seven months to formally respond to their offer to sell the Summerhill House Hotel, and pay the proceeds to Nama. By that time the buyer was gone, they claim.

They claim providing the security required by Nama would result in them breaching company law.

A company director cannot provide security for loans unless a statutory declaration is made outlining the benefit that will accrue to the company from providing the guarantee, they say.

A report must be drawn up by an independent party backing up that declaration, they have been unable to obtain such a report, and are therefore unable to provide the extra security, they claim.

The couple also say they are unhappy Nama had sought to portray their engagement with it as lacking in integrity.

The agency’s approach is completely artificial and an attempt to deprive them of the benefit of their businesses, they claim.