A High Court dispute over an attempt by a Musgrave Group company to have an examiner appointed to the operators of Lanney’s Supervalu in Ardee, Co Louth, has been resolved.
Last December, Musgrave firm Coralfin Ltd petitioned the court for the appointment.
Coralfin is a secured creditor, of some €15.6 million, in one of the Lanney operating companies, Escadia Ltd, whose debts are guaranteed by a second company, Belraine Ltd.
Escadia is the sole shareholder in Belraine whose directors are Margaret and David Lanney, of Nobber, Co Meath.
Apple MacBook Pro M4 review: A great option, but only if you actually need the power of the Pro
Why I’m happy not to be an alpha male
Dave Hannigan: Katie Taylor’s presence lends a modicum of dignity to sporting farrago
The Music Quiz: Harry Styles sings about what type of restaurant on his 2022 album Harry’s House?
Coralfin says it took over loans originally made by Anglo Irish Bank to Escadia and to the Ardee Co-ownership Group (ACG).
It sought the court protection of an examinership until an independent expert’s report into the future of Escadia and Belraine was prepared.
Escadia and Belraine opposed the application and said the dispute should be dealt with through mediation. They claimed it was an attempt to abuse the court process in an effort to gain control of the business.
The application to appoint the examiner was heard last month by Mr Justice Denis McDonald.
Coralfin urged the court to make the appointment with the two operating companies strongly objecting. Neutral positions were adopted by the ACG and the Revenue Commissioners who were notice parties.
The judge was due to deliver his decision at the start of this month when he was told talks were under way to resolve the matter.
He adjourned the case until Wednesday when he was told it had been resolved and the petition was being withdrawn.
John Lavelle, for Coralfin, said agreement had been reached between his client and the two operating companies.
The parties, in doing so, had agreed the petition was properly brought and there was also agreement that a receiver should be appointed, counsel said. It was also agreed there should be no order as to costs, he said.
Graham Kenny, solicitor for ACG, and Sally O’Neill, for Revenue, argued they should be awarded their costs for appearing on behalf of their clients. Mr Lavelle opposed that application saying there should be no order on costs which was well established in examinership proceedings.
Mr Justice McDonald welcomed the resolution of the dispute.
He also said both ACG and Revenue adopted neutral positions on the examinership application and he could see no basis for awarding them their costs.
