Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Some Advice Needed Please

1567810

Comments

  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wow ! And he's running the show 🤔



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Struck off I believe



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    He was struck of as a solicitor then But still running the Mortallatach Circus



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    😂😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Nice of them to keep us amused with the recent whisky non business related story!!


    Am sure there will be more to follow in the coming weeks as they attempt to find unsuspecting equity investors



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    This is dodgyone forgot password for other account so opened a new one. See management still up to the same shenanigans!



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    Company is not global in terms of “assets”. All were in Ireland in the NSX IM.

    Company is also not a plc! Was struck off by the NSX.

    Neither of these points should surprise anyone of course!



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    cannot even be honest about their name.



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26



    not sure what the word “lapsed” means on here. Finally struck off the Maltese companies register?



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Can't download that so they no longer Registered in Malta is that the case where they expelled As my friend that's involved said they will not be registered in Malta any more not sure where now if any where



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Their own website suggests they are registered in Malta (take that with a pinch of salt)

    If they are no longer registered it is because they have been delisted from the company register for not filing audits over a 7 year period. It will not be a choice they have made!


    To be honest they don’t need to be registered anywhere as they have no revenue, no profit to be taxed, have not ever filed accounts etc so being registered somewhere is largely meaningless.


    ask him where Bubba.

    Post edited by Veritas26 on


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Think UK



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Far too highly regulated for Moralltach!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    They have to do things like file audits on time!



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    All I got was they will not be registerd in Malta anymore so god knows where



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Luhansk Peoples Republic (occupied Ukraine) perhaps!



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Or Transnistria (occupied Moldova) the two most plausible options



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    Watching a Netflix documentary called “web of make believe”. I have a good idea for a new episode……..

    Post edited by charlatan21 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26



    we can expect something like this every couple of weeks now. They have almost certainly got an Asian marketing firm pumping out this type of stuff.

    the article is totally absent of providing any names!

    Moralltach cannot acquire anything as they have no money. No funder will lend to a company that has been incorporated for 7 years with no audits

    I cannot imagine any private equity house would go anywhere near Moralltach

    also talks of a “continued revenue stream”. They have never reported any revenue.

    Post edited by Veritas26 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    Next up will be some nonesense about their vast green energy portfolio.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So there going to solve the Housing crises I noticed there's a lot of ifs If they require the sites if they get planning with their so called investers oh and their existing portfolio Green Energy I know who was working on that he threw the hat in over this Green Energy project .There is building going on in Wicklow but with reputal building contractors I can't understand why they keep leading people on.Wheres there so called listing can't see that anywhere.and not on the Malta register now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    They will also solve the climate crisis



  • Registered Users Posts: 1 nil_desperandum


    sounds like a few bitter & twisted has beens here, inciting defamatory slander, which I would imagine has a potential libel recourse!



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    Is one way of looking at it. Another is people with honesty and integrity.


    Truthful comments are not libellous or defamatory. Would be interested to know which comments you believe could be construed as such.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    The truth hurts



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Every comment comes from either first hand experience or information available in the public domain (and is generally referenced as such), in some cases opinion based on what is in the public domain.


    Trust you are very closely linked to the company given

    a) you’ve just joined this forum

    b) Commencement of Moralltach marketing campaign.

    c) Interesting choice of language. BTW - slander has to be verbal.


    Of course would love to debate with you anything that you believe to be inaccurate (which I suspect will be nothing but let’s see)!

    Post edited by Veritas26 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    The second coming of Moralltach: the man, the plan and the money

    John Kieran Brennan is undeterred by allegations of impropriety and a failed attempt to float his company on the stock exchange. Instead, the former Wexford property developer turned business mogul says the best is yet to come 

    Bull and bear sculptures at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange in Frankfurt, Germany. John Kieran Brennan hopes to float his property fund Moralltach there. Picture: Ralph Orlowski/Bloomberg

    John Kieran Brennan believes in second chances. That’s why he called his property fund Moralltach, the name of a famous sword from Irish mythology which had the power to bring a warrior who had died in battle back to life.

    It seemed apt, he said, since the purpose of the company is to free hundreds of people from crushing Celtic Tiger-era debts — thus giving them a new lease of life.

    Brennan wants to float the company on the stock exchange in Frankfurt, which he described as “the Valhalla of stock exchanges”, and use the cash raised, both by issuing shares and raising other finance, to develop projects that he believes can wipe away the debts held by property owners in financial difficulty.

    “We help you fight the banks, and on top of that arrange the finance through the sale of shares to clear the bank debt. It’s all your birthdays come at once,” he told the Business Post in an interview in his solicitor’s office in Temple Bar, under the shadow of the old Central Bank building.

    However, the mythological resonance of Moralltach’s name has also become acutely relevant to Brennan lately.

    He has spent the last few years licking his wounds after a previous attempt to float the company on the stock market ran aground somewhere between Malta, New York and the Australian stock exchange, amid suspensions, de-listings, recriminations, and a welter of bad press.

    “Some people thought this was a pump and dump” scheme, he admitted, referring to investment scams that boost the shares of a company and sell them to unsuspecting buyers.

    This was all just negative news coverage, he said, adding that none of it has put him off trying again. He has dusted himself off and is in the process of putting together a new portfolio of properties, including a distillery in north Dublin which he said is worth €100 million and a basket of a thousand houses worth €700 million – amongst others.

    “We can’t save the world, but I liken it to the Titanic — it’s gone down and we're coming along. We can't save everyone, but whoever gets on board is lucky, because we have the facility to help them.”

    But he also knows he can’t pretend that Australia didn’t happen.

    Debt mountains 

    Brennan, who also goes by James or Kieran, was originally a property developer in north Wexford before the collapse of the Celtic Tiger. He was quite successful, he told the Business Post, saying: “Anything that’s been built in Bunclody, I built it.”

    After the crash, he saw a lot of people suffering from burdensome loans and he said he began to develop a sideline in helping to negotiate people out from under their debt mountains.

    That’s when he came up with the idea of Moralltach, which is based on a simple premise. The company strikes a deal with a property owner, especially one struggling with debt, which gives Moralltach what Brennan calls “contractual title” over the asset in question.



    John Kieran Brennan: ‘If you want to say that Australia was a failure, you can say it that way, but I would say that this is the second go.’

    The short version, he said, is that Moralltach “buys” the property from the owner for shares in the company as part of a specific contract, and “the conditionality is that we raise finance, clear their debt in a settlement, and go forward on a lease for 15 years, and they have a buy-back any time after 15 years”.

    No money changes hands during the “purchase”, and Moralltach don’t own the property in question outright, but to Brennan’s mind if the company builds up enough of those “contractual titles” into a portfolio of such assets, then Moralltach can then list its shares on the stock market and potentially raise money.

    The value for Moralltach is clear, but the company also claims it’s a “win-win-win” for the asset owner, since it gives them shares in Moralltach, which could rise in value; gives them a leaseback arrangement on the property; and gives them the possibility of raising funds to clear their debt.

    The success of the plan hangs on the ability to list the company and use it to raise funds, so in 2016 it got what is known as a compliance listing on the National Stock Exchange (NSX) in Sydney. This would give the business the opportunity to deposit the shares in New York, for trading on the Over The Counter market, known as the OTC, which allows the trading of shares directly between investors, rather than through a major market.

    The prospectus at that time described an impressive set up. First, there was Brennan himself, who had in the aftermath of the financial crash of 2008 “started a consultancy business to help business-owners and landowners deal with their financial challenges”, it explained.

    In doing so, he had spotted that “this unique and unprecedented situation in the Irish economy [was] an attractive business opportunity”.

    In helping people out of crippling debt, he and Moralltach had eventually developed a large asset base, and in November 2016 he decided to float it on the stock market with a property portfolio that was “independently valued at over €650 million”, according to its prospectus.

    That very first prospectus listed a welter of assets, from B&Bs to private residences to green-energy projects to quarries to farms, warehouses, equestrian centres, pubs and restaurants. There was even a French castle, Château de Meillard, with 15 bedrooms and an estate of 367 hectares of farmland, which had been extricated from a bewilderingly complex litigation a few years before.

    Brennan’s plan was to float the assets, raise funds — €325 million within two or three years, the prospectus said at the time — and then use the money to free the asset owners from their debt and simultaneously develop the projects.

    In late 2018, Moralltach was reportedly valued at €1.4 billion, which would have placed Brennan’s stake at nearly €700 million, had he been able to sell his shares.

    “Unfortunately, we ran into trouble,” Brennan told the Business Post last week. Between Brennan’s account of events and filings on the National Stock Exchange of Australia (NSX), it’s possible to assemble a timeline of events.

    The first wobble the company hit came in April 2018, when the NSX wrote to it to ask hard questions about its assets.

    It was at least in part inspired by an article in the Sunday Times newspaper which had reported the ESB as saying that it was “having some difficulty identifying the contracts referred to in the prospectus issued by Moralltach Global”.

    In its prospectus, it had listed several companies as having contracts with the ESB, including three projects which it said had a supply contract with the semi-state “for 15 years” with set “upwardly only price adjustments”, along with another company called Sandford Energy in Kerry.

    In order to clarify this, the stock exchange wrote to Moralltach asking the company to provide it with details of the company’s agreements, the commencement date of the projects, and any revenue forecasts.

    In its response, Moralltach said it was “considering our legal response” to the article and confirmed that Sandford Energy had a contract with the ESB, but did not mention the other three projects.

    When the Business Post asked Brennan about this, he blamed naivety for the errors.

    “We didn’t put anything out there deliberately [that was incorrect], I mean you’d have to be crazy to do that. If we’d known that at the time it wouldn’t have happened. We were probably just a bit naive at the time,” he said.

    Worse was to come. In July of 2018, the NSX started to interrogate the company about more of its financial figures, claiming that the information it had provided was “insufficient”.

    Then, as Brennan told the Business Post: “There was also an issue came up that they didn't understand or they didn't believe our contractual title.”

    As the stock exchange filings show, the NSX asked Moralltach for “the deeds of all investment properties and property, plant and equipment the company has obtained the legal title for”.

    Brennan insisted to the Business Post that the company had the titles and the company answered the questions at the time, but the NSX had more questions about “the conduct of two of the directors, some of which appears to be historical in nature”.

    One of those was Nick Linnane, its chief financial officer, who was the principal of Nick Linnane & Co, a Westmeath accountancy firm, which just the previous year had its business authorisation and its permission to hold clients’ money withdrawn by Chartered Accountants Ireland.

    In a letter dated September 10, 2018, Moralltach acknowledged that Linnane’s firm had "acted outside of its investment category in raising funds, through the sale of securities, for Moralltach" from "existing private clients of the firm".

    It resulted in two raps on the knuckles of the accountancy firm from Chartered Accountants Ireland, the supervisory body for the profession. The first was a withdrawal of the firm’s entitlement to hold clients’ money, and the second was the withdrawal of the firm’s investment business authorisation. Linnane declined to comment when contacted by The Business Post.

    Moralltach argued in its response to the NSX that the regulatory decision didn’t affect it, since Linnane & Co “carries on with its accounting activities under its existing licence, which remains in good standing”. It added that this was the reason it hadn’t told the NSX, since it believed it “had no bearing on Moralltach’s activities since the event occurred prior to the company being listed on the NSX”.

    The other director about whom the NSX was concerned was Brennan himself, who it turns out was struck off as a solicitor in 1995, according to the January/February 1996 issue of the Law Society Gazette.

    The notice describes how “the president of the High Court ordered that the name of John Kieran Brennan be struck off the roll of solicitors”, and described how Brennan would through his law firm have to “make restitution to the Law Society of Ireland for compensation monies paid to clients” through the society’s compensation fund.

    They said in the notice that Brennan had engaged in “dishonest conduct as a solicitor”; that he had “misappropriated substantial client funds”; had “falsified books of account so as to in some cases conceal, and in other cases to minimise” the apparent liabilities to clients; and that the pay-out by the Law Society had come to more than £814,000.

    It also concluded, amongst other findings, that he had “prevailed upon a client to withdraw a complaint” to the Law Society; “falsified the books of account” in order to “conceal a deficit in client funds” and “misled the High Court in representing to the High Court in an affidavit sworn 25 October 1991 that the deficit was between £150,000 and £250,000”.

    Brennan doesn’t dispute that he was struck off, but insists that this was unfair. A letter from his solicitor, James Flynn, the former Taxing Master of the High Court, said that his strike-off was a miscarriage of justice.

    Flynn said: “The simple fact [is] that he was illegally struck off from the legal profession. It actually beggars belief and I am in the process of having the same reversed.”

    In any case, by the time the NSX had begun to dig into the various issues it was concerned about, it was clear that Moralltach’s time on the Australian stock exchange was drawing to a close.

    Brennan told the Business Post: “We had a right barney with the NSX and we refused to pay them the fees; one thing led to another and we were de-listed and we didn’t apply to re-list. We were advised to sue, but you don’t sue when you’re on the back foot and you’re going to have to try and regroup,” he said.

    In April 2019, having been suspended since the previous year, Moralltach was finally removed from the stock exchange, with the NSX announcing that it “considers that the company is no longer suitable for listing”.

    An effort to sell €400 million worth of assets to a British property fund called William Marshall didn’t work out, but by then Brennan was having his own problems.

    “I'm not using this as a sob sister story,” he said, “but I went in for a check up at the Blackrock Clinic [for a neck operation] and they kept me in.”

    “I had an aneurysm that size,” he said, holding his hands alarmingly far apart, “that was ready and about to go — on the aorta on the way up to my brain. And I had a valve that was only half open, so literally they kept me in.”

    “I had an awful lot of time to think; I had a real chance to wind it up, to liquidate it,” he said. “But I said no. There’s too many people — small people — depending on me.”

    Distillery rhapsody 

    Earlier this month, Brennan officially launched the second coming of Moralltach with a tantalising press release.

    It described Moralltach as “a low-key Irish investment company registered in Malta”, and announced that it was “in advanced talks for a project acquisition for a €100 million whiskey distillery and business park”.

    It described an exciting project in the booming whiskey sector which was “backed by stakeholders with years of industry experience” and it played on the current trend for organic, locally-sourced food and drink, describing “the concept being from field to bottle production using sustainable farming practices from multi-generational farming history that ensures the highest quality from raw ingredients through to finished liquid”.



    The proposed Harvest Lodge Distillery in Naul, Co Dublin

    It also rhapsodised about how “the family-owned farm will use own-grown barley for the distillation process”, about how the “draff” from the distilling will be used to feed the farm’s livestock, and how the manure will be used to grow the barley.

    The circle of farm to bottle will “craft a harmonically matured whiskey with true authenticity” in line with the best “environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles”, and create “new jobs in the local area and potentially [attract] up to 50,000 new tourists every year”.

    It was all part of Brennan’s plan to create some media buzz in order to stoke interest in investment in Moralltach during his investor road show.

    Another press release, published just last week, announced “the on-going acquisition of multiple residential development sites” in Wexford, Wicklow, Dublin, Limerick, Cavan, Carlow and Kildare. The press release said the company had “undergone protracted talks with well-known property developers backed by a multibillion euro private equity group”, and that the sites it was in talks to buy had the capacity for a thousand properties with “an estimated total gross development value of over €700 million”.

    Brennan told the Business Post there are more projects on the way. One is a property that Brennan said is "in the middle of a potential application for a grid application to build a data centre" in Limerick.

    “Then we have not one, not two, but three whiskey distilleries, right? And that’s genuine. And we have a huge equine centre, which is in drastic trouble and we’ve got them virtually bailed out.”

    All told, Moralltch has around 70 projects under option, Brennan said, in a portfolio that has changed somewhat since the de-listing in Australia.

    Some people lost their properties, some got alternative settlements and walked away, and some he decided not to proceed with after some due diligence, he said.

    The projects fall into four broad categories, according to Brennan. The first category is the debt-restructuring projects, which he said require around €30 million to clear the debts on an €80 to €100 million valuation. Then there’s the development land, including the thousand houses worth potentially €700 million, which he said requires around €200 million to build out over five years.

    The third category is the green energy projects, which he said are “the sexy part” of Moralltach, and require in the region of €100 million over a three-year period. And finally there are the “specific projects”, including whiskey distilleries and quarries.

    He’s a little circumspect when it comes to discussing just what the projects are, though, until they’re revealed in the company’s prospectus.

    There are enough clues to facilitate educated guesses. The distillery, the Business Post can reveal, is Harvest Lodge Distillery in Naul, Co Dublin, but it hasn’t been built yet. In fact, it hasn’t even got planning permission.

    Nor is it necessarily a new project. The farm is owned by the McNally family, who were previously listed as partners of Moralltach’s when it was attempting its ill-fated listing in Australia. When contacted by The Business Post, Harvest Lodge Distillery said it was also in talks with a number of other potential funders.

    Overall, the portfolio has changed substantially, he reckoned, with around 30 to 40 per cent of turnover since the Australia prospectus.

    What has also changed is that several years later, there’s no shortage of funding for such projects, Brennan said, and he has struck agreements for potential project finance with a German bank called Renell Bank, run by a financier called Marc Renell.

    “We have a lot of contact with high-level family funds in Switzerland,” Brennan said. “Renell, for example, is saying he can put €100 million on the table tomorrow at 1 per cent.”

    He said of one project that he has “documentary proof” of an offer from “an Israeli bank” to put “half a billion on the table if the project was legit”.

    Black mark 

    The Business Post asked Brennan whether the way that the Australian listing ended might be viewed as a black mark against Moralltach, and it’s clear that he doesn’t view Australia as a failure, just as the first effort.

    “It’s not that it didn’t work, it’s that we didn’t raise the money,” he said. “If you want to say that Australia was a failure, you can say it that way, but I would say that this is the second go.”

    Over the last few months, Brennan has ramped up his road show, and he thinks that he could have "the final orders ready for passing at an AGM in the first week in August”.

    “From that it takes a four-week application for the listing, so we have to make an application, which brings us into mid-September.”

    He’s aware that a lot of IPOs were cancelled this year, and that the market is volatile, not least because of the war in Ukraine, “but I’m really anxious to do this”, he said. “Our aim is mid-October for a listing, please God.”

    Once it’s done he wants to be able to sit back and let someone else run it, he told the Business Post.

    “This will be huge,” he said. “I’m acting as chairman at the moment [but] I’m looking for a suitable international chairman so I can do like Tony Ryan did with Ryanair and step off the board.”




  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    My particular highlights


    1. The long list of issues with the NSX and that the company were “naive”!
    2. The reasons Brennan was struck off
    3. The fact that the company say they don’t own the assets yet plan to IPO of the back of assets they don’t own!
    4. The fact that the owners of the distillery when approached say they are speaking with multiple funders. Yet this is what the company believe is worthy of a newswire.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The fact they put out the distillery as a media Buzz😲



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1 Polar2022


    Any update on this? All gone very quite.



  • Registered Users Posts: 827 ✭✭✭farmingquestion


    Question about carrying forward losses.

    If I carry forward losses from one year to the next, if I don't buy or sell anything, do I still have to submit a return to carry the losses through to the next year again?



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    APPROVED

    [2023] IEHC 156

     BETWEEN

    THE HIGH COURT

    CORMAC LOHAN

    (PRACTISING UNDER THE STYLE OF LOHAN & CO. SOLICITORS)

    AND

    STEPHEN HATTON MARINA HATTON

    PLAINTIFF

    DEFENDANTS

    JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 31 March 2023

    INTRODUCTION

    1. The within proceedings were commenced by way of summary summons. The plaintiff subsequently issued a motion seeking to enter judgment. The plaintiff has since accepted that the proceedings should be remitted to plenary hearing. This judgment addresses the conditions upon which such remittal is to be made.

    2018 No. 899 S

     

    2

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    2. The plaintiff in these proceedings is a solicitor. The proceedings were instituted by way of summary summons and seek to recover a sum of €381,277.43 said to be due and owing to the plaintiff in connection with legal services provided to the defendants. The legal services related to High Court litigation in respect of a mortgage in favour of Danske Bank (“the Danske Bank litigation”).

    3. The proceedings are predicated on a bill of costs dated 8 March 2017. The bill of costs is addressed to the two defendants and to a company known as Edenfarms Ltd. The solicitor’s professional fee is in an amount of €170,000 (plus VAT). It has to be said that the level of detail provided in the solicitor’s bill of costs is sparse, especially given the very significant sums involved.

    4. The solicitor’s bill of costs is accompanied by copies of the fee notes furnished by senior and junior counsel to the solicitor. Counsels’ fees are in an aggregate amount of €136,100 (plus VAT).

    5. It should be observed that there is nothing in the limited papers before the court which indicates that the defendants had been informed in advance that the legal fees would be so high. The only figure in respect of fees which had been identified in the initial letter of engagement, dated 4 September 2015, had been a figure of €10,000 which the solicitor had requested as an upfront payment. Whereas it might be that the fee estimate could not have been more precise at that early stage of the Danske Bank litigation, it is not obvious from the limited papers before the court that the defendants were ever provided with an updated fee estimate.

    6. The legal fees have not been adjudicated upon by the Taxing Master of the High Court. It does not appear from the limited correspondence which has been


    3

    exhibited that the defendants had been informed at the time that they had an entitlement to refer the bill of costs for independent adjudication by the Taxing Master. (The adjudication function is now performed by the Office of the Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator pursuant to the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The relevant provisions commenced on 7 October 2019).

    7. The defendants purported to make a complaint to the Law Society in respect of the plaintiff on 12 September 2018. The purported complaint raises a range of matters, some of which relate to the bill of costs. By letter dated 7 December 2018, the Law Society wrote to the defendants as follows:

    “As Mr. Lohan has issued Court proceedings, under S13 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994, the Law Society is not in a position to investigate this matter further until the proceedings are determined. When the proceedings have concluded and if there are issues which the Court did not deal with, you can write to the Law Society again, raising the complaints you would like to be investigated, which were not dealt with by the Court.”

    8. The within proceedings were instituted on 25 July 2018, that is, prior to the complaint to the Law Society. The application to enter summary judgment was listed, initially, for hearing on 2 February 2023. On that date, the matter had to be adjourned because of the fact that written legal submissions had not been exchanged as had previously been agreed by the parties. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff was asked by the court to consider, first, whether it might be necessary to apply to amend the pleadings having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O’Malley [2019] IESC 84, [2020] 2 I.L.R.M. 423; and, secondly, the implications, if any, of Section 68 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994.

    9. On the adjourned date, 13 March 2023, counsel indicated that the plaintiff now accepted that the matter should be remitted to plenary hearing. The court


    4

    canvassed with counsel for the plaintiff whether his client would be prepared to agree to the referral of the bill of costs for adjudication. Counsel, having taken instructions, confirmed that his client did so agree.

    10. Counsel on behalf of the defendants did not raise any substantive objection to the proceedings being remitted to plenary hearing but did point to the delay in the proceedings to date. Counsel for the defendants also emphasised that, aside entirely from any question of the adjudication of the quantum of the legal costs, his clients were maintaining the defence, outlined on affidavit, that there was a collateral agreement whereby the costs were to be borne by another company, Moralltach Ltd.

    DECISION

    11. For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that the proceedings should be remitted to plenary hearing. First, it is apparent from the affidavits that there is a significant factual dispute as to whether or not some form of collateral agreement had been entered into between the parties to the effect that a company known as Moralltach Ltd would provide a loan to cover the entirety of the defendants’ outstanding indebtedness to Danske Bank and that any legal costs would be discharged by Moralltach Ltd. This is strenuously denied by the plaintiff. This factual dispute cannot be resolved on the basis of affidavit evidence alone. Secondly, it may be doubtful as to whether the summary summons, in its current form, complies with the requirements for summary proceedings as identified by the Supreme Court in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. O’Malley. Thirdly, a question mark arises as to whether the bill of costs is sufficiently detailed to allow the plaintiff to rely upon the provisions of


    5

    Section 2 of the Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849 (sometimes described as the Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Act 1849). This provision has to be read in conjunction with Section 68(4) of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994. The interaction of these provisions has been considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in Dorgan v. Spillane [2016] IECA 84.

    12. It will be a matter for the trial judge to consider all of these various issues and it should be emphasised that no finding is being made at this stage of the proceedings other than that the threshold of a credible or arguable defence has been met and that summary judgment is not appropriate.

    13. The proceedings will, accordingly, be remitted to plenary hearing. It is a condition of this remittal that the defendants are entitled, if they so wish, to refer the legal costs for adjudication. As indicated, the plaintiff has confirmed that he has no objection to such a condition. If the defendants wish to avail of the opportunity to refer the legal costs for adjudication, they have liberty to apply to this court within a period of three months from today’s date. If such an application is made, then a formal order referring the legal costs for adjudication will be made pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

    14. The objective of allowing for the possibility of adjudication is to ensure that the defendants are not prejudiced by the lack of detail in the bill of costs sent to them nor by the (seeming) lack of an accurate fee estimate. It would seem unfair were the defendants to be shut out by time-limits from seeking an adjudication of the legal costs. This is especially so in circumstances where there is nothing in the limited correspondence currently before the court which indicates that the defendants were advised of their entitlement to refer the legal costs for taxation or adjudication.


    6

    15. It should be emphasised that it is ultimately a matter for the defendants to decide, with the benefit of advice from their new lawyers, whether they wish to refer the legal costs for adjudication. The defendants may wish, instead, to defend the proceedings solely on the separate ground that some sort of an agreement had been reached with Moralltach Ltd and that accordingly they do not have any liability in relation to legal costs.

    CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER

    16. These proceedings will be remitted to plenary hearing pursuant to Order 37, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The defendants have liberty to defend the proceedings in general, and this is not confined to any specific grounds of defence identified in the replying affidavits. It is a condition of the remittal that the defendants have liberty to refer the legal costs for adjudication.

    17. I propose to make the following directions in relation to the exchange of pleadings. The plaintiff should deliver a statement of claim within six weeks of today’s date (this extended period is intended to make allowance for the Easter vacation). The defendants will have a period of four weeks thereafter to deliver a defence. The plaintiff will have a period of two weeks thereafter within which to deliver a reply.

    18. The parties have liberty to apply to me for further directions at that stage, or, alternatively, they may prefer simply to issue any motions in the ordinary way in relation to matters such as particulars or the discovery of documents. As explained, the defendants have liberty to apply to me within three months of today’s date to seek an order referring the legal costs for adjudication.



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    R E G I S T R Y A i nm a i l

    - 2 6 OCT 202 2

    OF COMPANIES

    Company Reg. No. C73540

    (13540) 18.

    Form K

    COMPANIES ACT

    otification ofchanges among directors or comps y secretarv or in t! presentation of the company and the directors' asent a n d declar

    appointment

    pursuant to Articles 139(1), 139(5) and 146

    Name ofCompany: Moralltach Global PLC

    Delivered by: Tomas Brennan, Clonmullen, Bunclody, Co. Wexford Irish, Passport No. PV4762975

    gistrar ofCompanies:

    in for

    Section A- Change in directors or company secretary orlegal representationofla company

    tach Global PLC hereby gives notice in accordanc panies Act that:

    the

    Eddie Kelly of Courtnacuddy, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford, heland, Irish,Passport No. PQ6221$64, is to be appointed as Company Secretary

    ve date ofchange (b) 10/10/2022 ..

    Signaturé lomas.

    Brown Director/Secretarv,

    mar /11



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    REGISTRY

    B

    (13540/11.

    AS - 4 MAR 2023

    0 2 DEC 2022

    • Orongh:?.

    O FCOMPANIES

    No. of Company ...C73540

    FormO

    COMPANIES ACT (CAP. 386)

    Notification of change in registered office of a compar Pursuant toArticle 79 (2)

    Name of Company ..

    Moralltach Global PLC

    Delivered by ...

    Tomas Brennan, Clonmullen,Bunclody, Co. Wexford

    egistrar ofCompanies: *alltach Global PLC

    hereby g ves notice in accordance with Article 79(2) of the Companies Act, 1995 that the company has changed its registered office t o :Junction Business Centre, 1st FloorTriq Laurdes,

    St Julian's, SWQ 2334, Malta

    Eliecuvt Date of Change ..14th November 2022

    Dated this 14th

    Name and signature.. Director/Secretarv/Mana

    . day of ... ...November... of the year 2022



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Veritas in lay mans language Loan was sueing Hattons for the amount 381,227 for legal fees .I remember Hattons They where Eden Farms there in the portfolio. So can you explain the rest in simple terms.What where the legal fees for and I see Mortallatach s name there too What's going on . Danaske bank where do they come in .What legal fees for



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Well is interesting as Hattons were one of the larger “assets” that Moralltach stated were on their balance sheet. Interesting as Lohan who I believe works for Moralltach is taking one of their largest customers to court for fees owed. Looks like things are unravelling quickly!

    The Danske debt I assume is the mortgage company for Hattons farm which then begs the question how can this be a Moralltach “asset” when Danske will ultimately have first call on the farm in the event of default.



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    The other posts are from the MBR website where after many years Moralltach have started filing including accounts!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Legal fees I assume are for legal work on the Danske debt. Which being as Moralltach claim on their own website to offer the following:-


    For the original property owner:

    • The debt is repaid and the probability of losing the property to foreclosure is reduced;

    therefore unclear why there should be any legal claim. Either way strange but not surprising



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Milo1970


    I am just wondering if anyone in the chat forum has been duped by the aforementioned individuals above, or know of anyone who has been duped by these same individuals. Please PM me. Thank you.🙏



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    GAZETTE

    The High Court - Petition No. 3SA/1995

    Re: John Kieran Brennan Solicitor formerly practising as John Kieran Brennan at 20, North Main Street, Wexford and under the style

    and title of P.J. O'Flaherty &Son at Mayfield, Enniscorthy,

    Co. Wexford.

    By order of9 October 1995 (as amended by order of 13 November

    JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996

    1995) thePresident of the High Court ordered that the name ofJohn Kieran Brennan be struck offthe Roll

    of Solicitors.

    He further ordered that the said John Kieran Brennan make restitution to the Law Society of Ireland for

    compensation monies paid to clients of the said John Kieran Brennan by

    the Society's Compensation Fund in the amounts

    of £85.575.68.

    £82,366.77, €29,266.23 and £56,905.70 and granted Judgement to the Society against John Kieran Brennan for the sum of £254.114.38

    being the total of these sums.

    Thecosts of both the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee and the Petition were awarded to the Society when taxed and ascertained.

    The Court had before it the report of the Disciplinary Committee of its hearing on 20 September 1994 in which the Committee found that there had been misconduct on the part of the Solicitor in that he had:

    d . misappropriated substantial client funds:

    b. falsified the books of account of his solicitor's practice so as to in some cases conceal, and in other cases to minimise, the apparent liabilitiest o clients:

    .c by his dishonest conduct as a

    solicitor caused substantial and on

    going claims on. and payments to

    be made out of, the Society's Compensation Fund:

    d. breached the Solicitors Accounts Regulations No. 2 of 1984 by:

    (i)

    failing to pay into the relevant Client accounts monies

    received for or on behalf of those clients. (Reg. 3):

    31


     11/13/23, 5:30 PM GAZETTE

    (ii) withdrawing from the client account substantial monies

    purportedly in respect of costs when either no bill ofcosts or written intimation of costs had been furnished to the client or the monies withdrawn were substantially in excess of the costs intimated to the client

    by bill or otherwise (Reg. 7 (iv));

    (in) wrongfully transferredclient monies from the ledger accounts of various clients to the ledger cards of other clients (Reg. 9);

    (iv) wrongfully withdrew client monies so as to cause the client account to become overdrawn (Reg. 7);

    (v) wrongfully withdrew client monies from the client account

    (Reg. 7);

    (vi) failed to keep proper books of account in relation to his practice (Reg. 10).

    e. through his dishonesty in his practice had caused the Society to make payments out of its Compensation Fund totalling £814,372.41 as ofthe 31st day of July 1994;

    .f produced to the Society accountant's reports in respect of his Enniscorthy and Wexford practices for his financial year ended 31st December 1990 showing a surplus of clients funds when he knew that the true situation was that there was a substantial deficit in his clients funds;

    g. produced the said certificates to the Society in respect of his practice

    for the financial year ended the 31st of December 1990 for the

    purpose of misrepresenting to the Society that he had complied with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and so misleading the Society into believing he had complied with the Solicitors Accounts Regulations and so misleading the Society;

    The Gazette 1996

    h. concealed from the Society's investigating accountant the deficit in clients funds duri

    ng thecourse

    of the investigation of his practice

    pursuant to the Solicitors Accounts Regulations;

    .i prevailed upon a client to withdraw a complaint to the Society, which complaint disclosed receipt by the Solicitor of £44,045.00 on behalf

    of the client which had not been recorded in the books of account by the Solicitor;

    .j misled the Society's Compensation Fund Committee at its meeting on

    19 September 1991 by representing to the Committee that he was not in a position to providean

    explanation in relation to the

    deficit recorded in the investigation report of 3 September 1991

    because he did not devote

    sufficient time to the accounting

    side of his practice;

    .k failedtoattendthemeetingof

    the Compensation Fund Committee of 13 February 1992 when

    required t odo so and when informed that the estimated deficit in relation to his practice as of 31 October 1991 amounted to £594,751.04;

    .1 misled the High Court in representing to the High Court in an affidavit sworn 25 October 1991 that the deficit in client funds was between £150.000 and €250,000;

    m. falsified the books ofaccount of his practice in relation to nine clients named in the report of the Disciplinary Committee to conceal adeficit in client funds;

    n.

    misappropriated the monies of four clients named in the report of the Disciplinary Committee in the

    amounts of £85,575.68, £82,366.77, £29,266.23 and £56.905.70respectivelycausing the Society to have to pay the

    said amounts out of its Compensation Fund.

    JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1996

    Compensation

    Fund Payments

    Out - December, 1 9 9 5

    The following claim amounts were admitted by the Compensation Fund Committee and approved for payment

    by the Council at its meeting in December 1995.

    https://user-wbvdowa.cld.bz/The-Gazette-1996/48#zoom=z

    1/1

    Michael Dunne. 63/65 Main Street, Blackrock,

    Co. Dublin.

    IRE 1.150.00

    1.150.00

    Compensation

    Fund Payments Out - January, 1996

    The following claim amounts were admitted by the Compensation Fund Committee and approved for payment by the Council at its meeting in

    January 1996.

    Francis G. Costello, 51 Donnybrook Road, Donnybrook,

    Dublin 4.

    IRE 6.125.00

    6.125.00

    Stamp Duty Public Office - New Procedures

    Following areview of the cashhandling arrangements in the Stamp Duty Public Office, new procedures will take place from 5February. 1996. On and from that date, any cash payments for Stamp Duty or Companies Capital Duty must be made direct to the Cash Office.

    An explanatory leaflet is available from theStamp Duty Office, Dublin 2orby telephoning the Stamp Duty Office at (01) 679 2777. Brendan Costigan, e x t 4574 or Donal Savage, extn. 4567, w



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Attention to clause 11.5 attested to in the attached in the context of the message above! Draw your own conclusions!

    https://www.nsx.com.au/ftp/news/021732645.PDF



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    You should be an investigative journalist!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Milo1970


    I agree 😅👏🏻👏🏻



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    The Barry Whyte article in July said the following on Brennan being struck off


    “The other director about whom the NSX was concerned was Brennan himself, who it turns out was struck off as a solicitor in 1995, according to the January/February 1996 issue of the Law Society Gazette.

    The notice describes how “the president of the High Court ordered that the name of John Kieran Brennan be struck off the roll of solicitors”, and described how Brennan would through his law firm have to “make restitution to the Law Society of Ireland for compensation monies paid to clients” through the society’s compensation fund.

    They said in the notice that Brennan had engaged in “dishonest conduct as a solicitor”; that he had “misappropriated substantial client funds”; had “falsified books of account so as to in some cases conceal, and in other cases to minimise” the apparent liabilities to clients; and that the pay-out by the Law Society had come to more than £814,000.

    It also concluded, amongst other findings, that he had “prevailed upon a client to withdraw a complaint” to the Law Society; “falsified the books of account” in order to “conceal a deficit in client funds” and “misled the High Court in representing to the High Court in an affidavit sworn 25 October 1991 that the deficit was between £150,000 and £250,000”.

    Brennan doesn’t dispute that he was struck off, but insists that this was unfair. A letter from his solicitor, James Flynn, the former Taxing Master of the High Court, said that his strike-off was a miscarriage of justice.

    Flynn said: “The simple fact [is] that he was illegally struck off from the legal profession. It actually beggars belief and I am in the process of having the same reversed.”


    We are supposed to believe 28 years later that James Flynn is going to challenger the 20 breaches that are noted in the disciplinary notice!!? This looks about as clear cut as a case could be!!


    No smoke without fire and steer well clear!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    The passage of time does not help Moralltach. As the tide goes out the truth is revealed. A quick recap:-

    A)In the failed IPO in Australia the company claimed in their Information Memorandum

    “What are the benefits of investing in the Company?

     The benefits of investing in the Company include the following:

     Asset portfolio valued at €650,000,000.

     Experienced management team.

     Energy Projects with existing supply contracts with the Government

    the ESB

     Debt Free

    B) In financial statement they then stated that they had revenues and assets which subsequently 98% of the revenue and 77% of the assets have been reversed.

    98% reversal of revenue in the H1 2018 statements to the NSX and on the NSX website. No revenue of any note has been recorded in any of the later sets of financials statements on the Maltese Business Registry (MBR) website.

    The 77% reduction in assets can be seen in the MBR website for the financials year ended 31/12/28. The 77% reduction which reduces assets from Euro 219m to Euro 50m is not taken as a loss to P&L but as reversal of equity. The reduction in assets is described in the financial statement as “investment properties revoked”. The obvious questions being if investment properties can be revoked of this quantum which no cash received by the company and no P&L recorded why are these recorded as assets at all?


    For anyone that has invested in this company or potentially would in the future the questions to ask at the AGM would be:-


    1. Could the remaining assets on the balance sheet be revoked in the future leaving the company with no assets?
    2. If not what is difference in nature with the remaining assets vs those that have been “revoked”?
    3. Are the company guaranteed to receive the economic benefits for the remaining on balance sheet items? That would mean that they are due to receive cash for the market value of the property at sale? Is this 100% guaranteed and if so why did this not happen on the 77% that were revoked?
    4. Why is the company receiving a 0% return on the assets recorded on balance sheet? Are they operating as a charity or they are not entitled to a return as they are not entitled to the economic benefits? If so why are they on balance sheet!?
    5. Have the management of Moralltach put a cent of their own money into the company in terms of equity? If so how much?
    6. How much money has been raised by selling shares for cash? What representation were given by management to those investors? Were they aware that 77% of the assets could be revoked? Are they aware of the status on the remaining 23%?
    7. How in 5 years from the NSX listing to now can the value of assets fall from Euro 650m in the IM (above) to todays Euro 50m with not a cent received in cash or revenue on those same assets?
    8. Does the company have any Governement contracts if so what and if so why no revenue?
    9. Who are this “experienced management” team!?




  • Registered Users Posts: 13 charlatan21


    The mind boggles!!!


    700,000,000 shares in existence.

    Patrick Fitzpatrick legal case said he paid 0.25 cents a share which valued the company at 175mn!

    C.50mn of assets on balance sheet values company at $0.07cents per share. This assumes that those assets are real of course.



  • Registered Users Posts: 91 ✭✭Veritas26


    Well in the accounts for 2021 a further €8m of properties have been “revoked”. No cash received, no loss booked and no revenue received!

    €42m of assets left. 700m shares. Shares price between 6 cents and zero based on your view of assets. Now 81% of the assets recorded on balance sheet in Australia have been “revoked”. Cannot see any logic why this could not happen to the remaining “assets”.

    Estimated share price Nil!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 15 Milo1970


    James Flynn is no knight in shining armour, I believe he still acts for John Kieran Brennan and is basically bankrupt according to the two articles below. The web widens everyday of these colourful individuals, who tries to take everyone to court who stands in their way. This is their only hope of dragging people through the courts to get protection and as they cannot get protection from the CRO, because of failure to file accounts Etc.


    Post edited by Milo1970 on


  • Advertisement
Advertisement