A Dubai-based firm has urged the Supreme Court to prevent it being sued here over its acquisition of a multi-million euro property in India from companies controlled by members of the family of businessman Sean Quinn.
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation alleges Mecon FZE is part of an alleged conspiracy by various Quinn family members and companies to place valuable assets beyond the bank's reach. IBRC previously secured orders joining Mecon to its proceedings, initiated in 2011, against the Quinns and several companies over assets the bank maintains are part of the Quinn international property group (IPG). Freezing orders were later obtained against Mecon and other alleged co-conspirators as part of IRBC's efforts to recover assets linked to the Quinns.
The full hearing of IBRC's case has been "parked" pending various criminal cases involving former executives and employees of Anglo Irish Bank.
Mecon denies conspiracy and argues it legitimately acquired a property — Hi Tech Park in Hyderabad, India, with an estimated value of more than €60 million — at “arm’s length” from a complex entity controlled by the Quinn family.
Appropriate forum
In 2013, Mecon, whose directors are Indian residents, sought a stay in relation to the Irish proceedings against it on grounds including that the appropriate forum was India, where IBRC has also brought proceedings against Mecon.
IBRC claims the alleged events at the centre of the action against Mecon and the other defendants were formed, planned and directed from Ireland. It claims Mecon unlawfully participated in a share transfer and conspired to transfer shares in a company — Mach Soft Tech Pvt Ltd (MST) — at an undervalue.
In January 2013, the High Court refused to stay the case here against Mecon and ruled that joining Mecon to the Irish proceedings was "sensible and just". Mecon's appeal against that decision was heard by the Supreme Court on Thursday.
The three-judge court, comprising Judges Donal O'Donnell, Frank Clarke and John MacMenamin, reserved judgment.
Michael McDowell SC, for Mecon, argued there was no prima facie case of conspiracy against Mecon or suggestion it was involved in "moving assets around the world" and the High Court had placed too much weight on the assertions by IBRC about what is fact.
The only wrong claimed against Mecon was it had agreed to take shares at an undervalue and it was “simply unfair” to bring his client to two different places to deal with litigation arising essentially on the same facts, he said.
Improper purpose
The appropriate forum for this case was India, IBRC had not made out any case Mecon did, or agreed to do, anything in Ireland and instead alleged Mecon received property it should not have got and did so for an improper purpose, he added.
When Judge MacMenamin asked if Mecon would undertake not to apply to the Indian courts to discharge the freezing part of orders concerning the shares, Mr McDowell said he had no instructions in that regard.
Shane Murphy SC, for IBRC, argued the matter should be heard in Ireland on grounds including the share transfer is part of a wider alleged conspiracy involving members of the Quinn family of which conspiracy, IBRC alleges, Mecon is part.
Mr Murphy said there was “real”, not “hearsay”, evidence Mecon was involved in a financial transaction with some of the alleged co-conspirators. There was “real evidence of a money trail” and of transfer of monies to Mecon around times “strikingly close” to the relevant share transaction, he said. There was a “stateable” case against Mecon as such evidence showed interaction and co-operation between the alleged co-conspirators.
