A SOLICITOR being pursued by Bank of Ireland for €75 million over property investments has disagreed with a High Court judge’s suggestion that an “umbrella” entity under which various multimillion euro investments were made by the lawyer and his wife, appeared “very shadowy indeed”.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly made the remark during the examination of Brian O’Donnell as part of Bank of Ireland’s attempts to recover €75 million under judgments against him and his wife, Dr Mary Patricia O’Donnell, Gorse Hill, Killiney, Co Dublin.
The O’Donnells filed for bankruptcy in London on March 23rd just hours before the bank applied for orders to question them in the Commercial Court in Dublin over “alarming” discrepancies between a statement of affairs of March 2011 and one in February 2012.
The bank claims the couple had part or full ownership of an international property portfolio, including in Washington DC, sold a year ago for $155 million. It says the statement also indicated they owned or part-owned London properties at Canary Wharf and Barton Street.
The bank says an updated statement of affairs last February directly contradicted the first statement and indicated the Canary Wharf properties were beneficially owned by their son Blake and the Barton Street property by their four children.
The statement also indicated the Killiney family home was beneficially owned by their children.
Asked yesterday about an entity called Vico Capital, Mr O’Donnell said it never traded and he and his wife regarded it as the trading name under which people knew them. He agreed he previously described it in an affidavit as a limited liability company and a partnership, but said that was “loose language” and there was no intention to mislead.
The judge said that from Mr O’Donnell’s evidence, Vico Capital appeared to be an unregistered business name and involved a partnership “at will” of Mr O’Donnell, his wife and, possibly, their son Blake.
When the judge suggested Mr O’Donnell, an “experienced solicitor”, might regard this as “all very shadowy indeed”, Mr O’Donnell said it was not shadowy.
He said the lending involved was very complex and it was not uncommon to use an unregistered business name.
When the judge suggested the first statement gave a “skewed and inaccurate picture”, Mr O’Donnell said he had nothing to hide.
When he said he had not signed the initial net worth statement, Mr Justice Kelly, clearly frustrated, said: “Come on, Mr O’Donnell, that is not an answer that does you any credit.
“Unless we are in Alice in Wonderland, net worth means what net worth is.”
If the bank had worked with them, this could have been kept quiet and assets sold for the maximum price possible, he added.
