Ronan O’Gara contests fellow shareholder’s insolvency arrangement

A COMPANY whose shareholders includes rugby star Ronan O’Gara and businessman Michael O’Flynn has asked the High Court to set aside an allegedly “fraudulent” personal insolvency arrangement made in favour of their fellow shareholder John O’Driscoll.

The application, which is to be opposed by Mr O’Driscoll, has been made by Ezeon Entertainment Limited, a company that purchased and renovated a pub in Cork’s Washington St called The Silly Goose in 2007.

Mr O’Gara, Mr O’Flynn, and Mr O’Driscoll who are known to each other were equal shareholders in the venture, which was funded by loans from Anglo Irish Bank.

In 2014, Mr O’Flynn took over the borrowings and refinanced the company for €2.2m, which had risen to €2.5m by 2018.

Arising out of that debt it is alleged that Mr O’Driscoll, from Ovens, Cork, owes at least €950,000 to Mr O’Flynn.

Mr O’Driscoll applied for, and in March 2022 was granted, a personal insolvency arrangement (PIA) by the Circuit Court in March 2022.

That decision was upheld on appeal to the High Court last July.

Mr O’Flynn had attempted to oppose the PIA over the alleged debt to him, but had been prevented from doing so on the grounds that he lacked the legal standing.

However, Ezeon also has serious issues with the PIA and wants it set aside over concerns, including an alleged misappropriation of just over €15,000 in company funds by Mr O’Driscoll.

It also claims there is significant stock missing from the company.

Ezeon is also concerned about fair procedures in the PIA, as it claims it was not listed as a creditor of Mr O’Driscoll when he was allegedly in control of the company at the time.

Ezeon claims that because it was never given any notice of Mr O’Driscoll’s initial application for protection from his creditors, the company never received a proper opportunity to object to him being granted a PIA.

It has further concerns over the categorisation of Mr O’Driscoll’s debt to Ezeon.

Ezeon now claims the debt owed to it by Mr O’Driscoll was not properly specified in the PIA, that it did not know about the PIA until the matter appeared in media reports, and that the process was, in effect, an alleged fraud on the company.

It did not validly approve the PIA, it further submits.

In a sworn statement to the court, Mr O’Gara, who now coaches in France, said he had been friends and a former teammate of Mr O’Driscoll for many years said he was “upset and deeply annoyed” by Mr O’Driscoll’s actions.

The La Rochelle coach said he had no wish to have a personal dispute with Mr O’Driscoll but said there had been a material breach of trust.

Mr O’Gara does not have much day-to-day involvement with the company, but he put money into it, including €20,000 to keep it afloat in 2019.

However, he said he had some conversations with Mr O’Driscoll about the business, the alleged misappropriation of funds, and the debt owed to Mr O’Flynn.

In one exchange earlier this year, Mr O’Gara said to Mr O’Driscoll, “you have fleeced me”.

He said that as a shareholder of Ezeon he had not been made aware of Mr O’Driscoll’s bid for a PIA until he read about it in the newspapers.

The claims are denied.

The matter was briefly mentioned before Justice Alexander Owens, the judge presiding over the High Court’s insolvency list, yesterday.

Martin Hayden, senior counsel for Ezeon, said the matter was complex and involved issues of non-disclosure by Mr O’Driscoll to his client, and an alleged fraud on the Insolvency Service of Ireland.

The court also heard that the issues being raised by the company were new and had not been raised before the court previously.

Bernard Dunleavy, senior counsel on behalf of the respondent’s personal insolvency practitioner, said his side wanted time to file a sworn statement in response to the application to set aside the PIA, and the allegations now being made on behalf of Mr Hayden’s client.

He said Mr O’Flynn could not be allowed to conduct some version of ‘Lanigan’s Ball’ where “he steps in and steps out again” by swearing different versions of what he is owed by the company.

Mr O’Flynn’s previous attempt to have the PIA set aside had been dismissed by the High Court in July, after it found that he lacked the legal standing to have Mr O’Driscoll’s arrangement set aside.

An application to have an appeal against that dismissal heard by the Supreme Court has yet to be determined counsel said.

Counsel said that it would be better if all of the applications brought against the PIA were listed together and dealt with at the same time.

Mr Justice Owens, who said the hearing of all matters together “made sense”, said he was prepared to adjourn the matter to a date in mid-January to allow Mr Dunleavy’s side to prepare a sworn statement in reply to the application.