The Taggart brothers, Michael and John are borrowers in NAMA and indeed earlier this year, one of their companies sued NAMA in Dublin’s High Court. But the Taggarts from (London)Derry also had substantial borrowings at Ulster Bank and since 2008, Ulster Bank has been pursuing the brothers for hundreds of millions. The Taggarts hit back accusing Ulster Bank of misrepresentation, material non-disclosure and breach of contract. Last week in Belfast, in the face of what the Judge called “trenchant opposition by the bank”, the Judge ordered that three actions be combined together for a forthcoming hearing. Ulster Bank is pursuing two personal guarantees of GBP 9.3m (€11m) and the Taggarts are claiming that Ulster Bank’s behavior destroyed their business.
The Taggarts developed property in Northern Ireland, Britain, Luxembourg and also in the Republic. It is a €21m development site in Kinsealy, north Dublin, in relation to which Ulster Bank is pursuing the guarantees. The Taggarts are claiming the bank destroyed their business and about 500 jobs without proper cause. It is a bad-tempered fight and the Judge in Belfast’s High Court last week, Mr Justice Bernard McCloskey, referred to the frequent “skirmishes” in his court as the three matters at issue have progressed. There appears to have been issues with the banks disclosing documents to the Taggarts.
We are set to have a full hearing in May or June 2013 where the issues will be aired. Other bank borrowers, not just those with Ulster Bank, will closely follow the case to see if parallels can be successfully drawn with their own circumstances.
The judgment last week which ordered the three matters to be heard together is here.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Has any developer yet had significant a cut-and-dried win against a bank?
@JP, David Agar seemed to emerge victorious with his €30m swap mis-selling claim against Ulster Bank
https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/nama-cortina-developer-wins-e30m-in-dublin-court-battle-with-bank/
Paddy McKillen’s score-draw against NAMA was really a win because NAMA didn’t take over most of his loans, which was the objective.
But getting the judge to accept bullying, poor loan documentation and misrepresentation hasn’t been fruitful, at least in the cases that have been reported, and it could well be that some settlements are going unreported.