As predicted on here yesterday, the saga of Mary McCabe’s 8.38 carat diamond ring is increasingly resembling a Georgian yarn about a lost or stolen five shilling note. Today, we learn from Dublin’s High Court that the famous ring, to which receivers were appointed last Thursday 1st February was in fact sold at a jewelry fair in Miami on 29th January. For USD 205,000 (€151,000).
It seems that the ring was given to Dublin jewelers John Farrington earlier in January – the precise date is unclear but it is reported that the ring was brought to Miami on 24th January and sold at a jewelry fair on 29th January – two days before the redoubtable Judge Peter Kelly was troubled with a NAMA application to have receivers appointed to it. It remains unclear at this point why Mary McCabe did not disclose all of this to the court last Thursday and neither NAMA nor the Judge is likely to be enamoured with this conduct. [UPDATE: despite there being correspondence before the court from the McCabes last Thursday, it appears that the NAMA application was an urgent ex parte one, and that therefore Mary McCabe might not have been aware of it]
Farrington’s are reported to have the necklace which will be handed over to the receivers who already have possession of the bracelet. But it was the 8.38 carat ring that caught our imagination last week. It was valued at around €150,000 by NAMA, and seemingly, NAMA will now receive the proceeds of the Miami sale, so NAMA is not out of pocket, it seems.
Dearbhail McDonald has reported on today’s proceedings in the Irish Independent.
Farrington’s were asked for a comment yesterday (Sunday) but at time of writing, there has not yet been any response.
UPDATE: 18th February, 2013. The McCabe ring yarn returned to the High Court again today, where the McCabes’ son, John said the family was consenting to the appointment of receivers over the three items of jewelery. A further twist has emerged in the yarn, with Farrington’s jewellers retaining €7,500 in commission before handing the remaining €143,000 approximately over to the receivers. Judge Kelly today noted that there was no impropriety on Farrington’s part but ordered that the commission be handed over to the receiver. The yarn gets better because NAMA or at least its receiver is apparently saying that John McCabe junior told him that there would be no sales commission. Oh, and the receiver will be seeking details of the buyer of the ring. The yarn might have some way to go yet.
UPDATE: 30th April, 2013. The ring saga seems to have concluded at the Commercial Court division of the High Court yesterday when Judge Kelly was informed that NAMA has agreed to let the jeweller, John Farrington, who had sold the ring in Florida to keep his 5% commission, equivalent to about €7,500. It is important to state that Judge Kelly characterised John Farrington as “an innocent” in the ring saga.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Maybe that’s just what happens when you run hastily into a court salivating at the prospect of humiliating a woman in front of the baying masses.
Probably should have checked she owned the f**king thing first lads…
It just shows the complete lack of any sort of civilised basic communication between NAMA and its borrowers. So much for the much vaunted co-operation between the parties. It is, as I have always maintained – them and us. The bully and the victim. And there is no trust between the parties, no interests that coincide. And NAMA need that co-operation, because they are holding loans and guarantees on them which if challenged will be found flawed. Altogether, a very bad basis for achieving the maximum return for the Irish people.
Did the McCabes delibrately move assets beyond the reach of creditors.?IF(and its a very big IF) then way is this not getting the same attention in media circles as the quinn family have been getting
Shows again how difficult these people are to deal with.
@Patrick, the proceeds of the sale in Miami, €151,000 are to be handed over to NAMA. There is no allegation that the ring was sold below value, in fact the opposite, it seems to be agreed that the ring would fetch more in the US than in Ireland.
@ Patrick – No.
@ NWL – You may not have picked up on the fact that last Thursday’s application was made on an “urgent ex parte basis” and Mrs. McCabe was not notified or present so, no, she did not mislead anyone. You might want to change that line as it is a little unfair, or as us lawyers say, ahem, defam..
NAMA could presumably have telephoned her but to ask where the ring was but… ?
@L’Eagle, thank you for that, and no, I didn’t know that it was an urgent application though I suspected it was ex parte. What confused matters was that there was correspondence from the McCabes before the court last Thursday –
“A letter written to Nama by a son of Mrs McCabe had alleged the agency was behaving unfairly in brining court proceedings over this”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0131/breaking62.html
The implication was that the son was aware of the proceedings, generally, and by implication, Mary would have been, but that has not been estavlished.
“Urgency” is a prerequisite to an ex parte application. Or at least one party’s characterisation of facts as giving rise to urgency and a judge nodding sagely in agreement. Unfortunately there was no urgency here; the horse had bolted; just some decent folk not trusting NAMA to achieve full value if a Receiver tried to sell a ring and doing the decent thing themselves. (Or did NAMA want to wait for the ring to achieve its LTEV?) The report of 31 January was unclear, your intentions were as always good, fair comment.