Efforts to settle a bitter legal dispute between members of the Coman family over the future ownership and running of their Dublin-based multi-million Euro pub and drinks business have been unsuccessful, the High Court heard today.
The hearing of the dispute over the nature and effect of an alleged agreement of February 2003 between Mr Patrick and Mary Coman on the one side and five of their six sons on the other opened on Monday and, at the close of that day's hearing, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, indicated that if the parties "don't get some sense", there would be "nothing left for anyone" of the €7 million at the centre of the dispute.
As the case was due to enter its second day, Mr Justice Finnegan, was told there had been discussions between the parties. Unfortunately, however, the sides had been unable to resolve their differences, Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, for the five sons, said.
Mr Justice Finnegan is being asked to resolve the meaning and effect of an alleged agreement of February 5th, 2003 between Patrick (80) and Mary (70) Coman, founders of the business, and five of their sons - Geoffrey, John, Patrick junior; Thomas and Denis.
Today's hearing again heard of discussions between lawyers for both sides on the evening and night of February 5th, 2003, when attempts were being made to resolve the dispute. While the discussions were taking place, some of the Comans were in the Conrad Hotel, Earlsfort Terrace, while others were in a nearby solicitor's office. Both groups were being kept informed of developments.
Mr Gerard Hogan SC, who was among those lawyers representing the sons in February 2003, told the court yesterday he was emphatic there was a settlement that night.
He was unequivocally and unwaveringly of the view that there had been a settlement. He walked out of that meeting about 11.15pm and was absolutely satisfied there was a settlement.
Mr David Larney, solicitor, for Patrick Coman Limited, said it became quite clear, at virtually every board meeting, that there was broad disagreement with the sons against the parents or the parents against the sons.
He added that Mr Coman senior was drawing down money from the company in the mid 1990s. The children were growing up at this stage and he was anxious to make provision for them. As the amount of money got larger and larger, the difficulties for the company increased.
He started by making deposits on houses for the children and he then began to buy houses outright. The withdrawals began at IR 30,000 up to IR 50,000 and, by the mid 1990s, had grown to IR 100,000 at a go. One withdrawal was for IR 300,000 and that proved to be inadequate. IR 350,000 was later taken out instead.
The figures added up to IR 1.25 million that had been advanced to Mr Coman. An attempt was made in 1997 to build bridges but a resolution to that effect had been voted against by Mr Coman, Mr Larney said.
In February 2003, he was aware of litigation between the shareholders, Mr Larney added. He saw just "non-ending litigation" and it seemed to him it was necessary to bring some common sense to bear for the benefit of the survival of the company. He was trying to get out of the litigation mode and trying to get a commercial arrangement to bring about an end to hostilities.
Mr David Hargaden, an accountant with BDO Simpson Xavier, said he was auditor to the Coman company since about 1998. There had been an eight hour-hour process on February 5th, 2003. At the end of an intense eight hours, €7,050,000 was agreed to be offered by the brothers and accepted by the parents. The pub was included in the deal as was "forgiveness" of the €1.25 million debt to the company from Mr Coman senior.
The hearing continues tomorrow.