The High Court refused Boylesports’ application for further information about Ladbrokes’ Irish betting shops, leaving the Examiner’s decision to withhold the data in place. The court found that the decision was not “so utterly unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable man would have done it”.
Boylesports had been admitted to the second phase of a process to find investment for Ladbrokes (Ireland) Ltd, Ladbrokes Leisure (Ireland) Ltd and Dara Properties Ltd, which were in examinership. It sought shop-by-shop turnover and betting-slip figures for the previous three years, lease details, a list of shops earmarked for closure and a detailed breakdown of head-office costs. Boylesports said the information was needed to value the business and make a properly informed final offer by the 4 June 2015 deadline.
The Examiner had provided lease information and some head-office details, and agreed in principle to identify shops earmarked for closure as related lease repudiation applications were issued. He continued to refuse shop-level trading figures, offering instead to provide turnover and betting-slip data by region. He and the companies said disclosure could give unsuccessful bidders information they might use to target individual shops and harm the business after examinership.
Boylesports argued that the restricted information and short deadline undermined competition for the business and risked reducing the return to creditors. The Examiner said the material already in the data room was sufficient to make a final bid and that he had weighed the interests of the companies, potential investors and creditors. These were competing submissions; the court’s decision addressed whether the Examiner’s refusal could be set aside.
The court held that Boylesports had standing as a creditor, based on an assigned rental debt, and that the statutory jurisdiction allowed an interested party to raise questions about the Examiner’s performance of his functions. It also found that withholding the information was the Examiner’s own decision and an exercise of his commercial judgment. The court did not decide whether Boylesports would have made a better offer with the requested data.
Applying the standard for reviewing an insolvency office-holder’s commercial judgment, the court concluded that the Examiner had given valid commercial reasons and that his decision did not meet the threshold for intervention. It refused the application. The ruling did not order disclosure of the requested information or determine the outcome of the examinership or the investment process.