DEVELOPER BERNARD McNamara has sought to compel investors pursuing him for €62.5 million to sign a “non-disclosure” agreement before releasing information about his and his companies’ assets, it emerged at the Commercial Court yesterday.

Mr McNamara said last month he has no unencumbered assets and is unable to pay the €62.5 million. Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told the investors have refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

The judge will deal on Monday with their application for an order requiring Mr McNamara to provide them with an affidavit of his and his companies’ assets and setting out the current value of those assets and liabilities.

The judge remarked it was “rather extraordinary” Mr McNamara wanted to swear an affidavit and also wanted a non-disclosure agreement.

Eoin Cuneen, a solicitor for the investors, said in an affidavit they understand Mr McNamara has “extensive assets”. The investors include Martin Naughton, Lochlann Quinn and the Coolmore Stud. They also want information about Mr McNamara’s involvement in a personal capacity as a consultant to a company which has formed a joint venture to pursue projects in Qatar.

They have written to Mr McNamara saying they assume the information sought “is readily to hand as no doubt Mr McNamara has prepared a similar document for Nama and his funders”.

The investors’ application arises after Ringsend Property Ltd (RPL) – a Jersey-registered company representing them – secured summary judgment last month for some €62.5 million against Mr McNamara over failure by his company Donatex Ltd to repay loans advanced towards the €412 million purchase of the Irish Glass Bottle site at Ringsend.

On Monday RPL will seek court orders requiring Mr McNamara to provide a detailed schedule of all assets. This will include personal properties, in which he or his companies hold an interest and details of all transfers of property or other assets to family members, connected parties or companies owned, controlled or associated with Mr McNamara within the past five years.

Details of all projects being carried out by Michael McNamara Company (MMC) including the likely income stream such projects will generate are also sought, plus details of all the shareholdings held by Mr McNamara in various Michael McNamara companies.

Mr McNamara had referred during an RTÉ interview on January 13th last to four or five projects which MMC was engaged to carry out, along with a project at Doha. RPL wants details of the income stream those projects were likely to generate.

Solicitors for Mr McNamara had indicated they would provide the “required form of affidavit”. But it was not possible to include a sworn statement as to the “estimated current value” of any assets.

They also objected to providing details of projects in which MMC were involved.

A director of Donatex Ltd had sworn an affidavit in relation to its assets. That was provided earlier this month and no orders were being sought against Donatex in this application, Mr Cuneen said.

Mr McNamara’s solicitors had written on February 11th last asking RPL to execute an enclosed non-disclosure agreement prior to releasing the affidavit concerning his assets. They noted RPL was not entitled to information about MMC.

Mr Cunnen replied saying RPL would not sign a non-disclosure agreement and would not disclose the information to the media but would make use of it to enforce all relevant rights and in the context of court applications. They could not prevent the media publishing information in the context of such applications, he said.

Mr Cuneen later wrote saying if the affidavit was not provided by February 12th last, his side would apply to the court to compel Mr McNamara to swear it in the form sought. Mr McNamara, as an experienced property developer, could make a reasonable estimate of the current value of his assets, he said.

Mr McNamara’s solicitors had replied on February 12th saying an affidavit was prepared and would be provided once the non-disclosure agreement was signed. They referred to leaks to the media which were damaging to Mr McNamara. Further letters repeated that Mr McNamara insisted the agreement be signed before his affidavit would be forwarded.