Here it is
It seems to put to bed the curiously inaccurate reporting by the (at least) three Irish reporters who were in the court room on 19th February 2013. The protective order preventing the Dunnes deposing NAMA CEO Brendan McDonagh remains in place but it is for NAMA to apply to renew the protective orders, if, after the Dunnes depose John Coleman and obtain further information from NAMA, the Dunnes seek to depose Brendan.
So how did Simon Carswell, Richard Downes and Orlaith Farrell all conclude from the court hearing on 19th February that the Dunnes won the right to depose Brendan? Impossible to say – maybe Gayle’s glamorousness bedazzled them all.
The Order above states that NAMA employee John Coleman is to be deposed on 28th March 2013. “Deposing” involves John making a statement on the matter at issue between NAMA and the Dunnes and allowing himself to be quizzed by Sean and Gayle’s lawyers. There is to be some disclosure of what the Americans call the “privilege log” by tomorrow, Tuesday 5th March 2013, and if there are issues on the disclosure, the Dunnes have until next Tuesday week, 12th March 2013 to bring them to the attention of the court.
It is not clear what “motion to strike” NAMA has made, but the judge said that any reply to it by the Dunnes was required last Friday 1st March 2013.
Stepping back from all of this, NAMA is pursuing the Dunnes, particularly Gayle over allegedly improperly benefitting from transfers from Sean and the full hearing is scheduled for September 2014, yes 19 months hence. There is a lot of questioning and disclosure beforehand, together with the Dunnes’ argument that the US courts don’t have jurisdiction over part of the case. From the almost daily filings in the case, it is clear that it is being fought tooth-and-nail by both sides.
UPDATE: 19th March, 2013. It is reported by the Irish Independent today that the Dunnes are seeking five additional documents relating to their failed business plan submission.The judge told them yesterday to try to resolve their differences, failing which she would rule on the documents today. NAMA is seeking to expand its legal representation in the Connecticut, and it has succeeded in having Tom Curran of McCarter and English appointed in the case. Tom is described as an expert in fraudulent transfer. McCarter and English is the main law firm being used by NAMA in this case. As is usual in this case, where both sides seem hell-bent on resisting any move by the other, the Dunnes objected to NAMA’s attempt to expand their legal team but on this occasion the Dunnes were unsuccessful.