Lawyers for some 270 people suing over losses suffered on investments in property funds promoted by AIB have argued the bank's selection of sample cases to be fast-tracked at the Commercial Court is not representative of the investors.
AIB "cherry picked" seven sample cases involving claims by a partner in accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, a senior counsel, an accountant, a solicitor, two former AIB employees and a successful retired businesswoman, said Tom Casey, solicitor for a large number of investors.
The AIB selection has a “consistent high level of sophistication and experience (financial, business and/or legal) which is not representative of the investors as a whole”, he said. One of the seven sample cases chosen by AIB is not proceeding, he noted. Mr Casey said his side had identified other sample plaintiff investors whose individual claims and factual circumstances encompass issues which may not arise in the AIB sample.
He said “commonly observed” failures in relation to the investments include alleged failures relating to the selling process concerning the investments, alleged misrepresentation of the characteristics of the investment product and alleged failure to ensure the products suited the particular investor in light of factors including their investment experience.
The nominee cases chosen by the plaintiffs side include one by a 65-year-old woman whose husband had, allegedly on advice from AIB, invested some €150,000 at a time in 2003 when he was terminally ill and “heavily medicated”, it was claimed in court documents. The man died a month after the investment was made.
A second case chosen concerns a man whom it is alleged had several small pension schemes and had received investment advice only from AIB when he invested some €218,000 in 2005. It is alleged in court documents the man was advised to amalgamate all his pension schemes and invest them in a single fund and did so based on recommendations of AIB personnel.
Gary McCarthy SC, instructed by Mr Casey, secured orders from Mr Justice Brian McGovern transferring the sample cases selected by his side to the Commercial Court list.
Martin Hayden SC, for AIB, argued it had been given no proper information or explanation concerning how the plaintiff nominee cases had been selected. His side were unclear how there could be two representative cases when the proceedings related to five different funds all with different structures, he said.
Mr Justice McGovern said he considered it should be possible to reach agreement concerning how the cases are to be grouped and put the matter back for two weeks.
Some 273 investors have sued over losses on their investments in five investment funds in commercial property in the UK known as the Belfry funds.
