Connect with us

Business

Trustees Reject €50K Inducement, Favor Maurice Regan’s €22.25M Bid

Editorial

Published

on

A significant legal confrontation has emerged surrounding the Barne Estate in County Tipperary, as trustees have opted not to pursue a sale to bloodstock magnate John Magnier after allegations of an attempted inducement surfaced in High Court proceedings. The case stems from a claimed €15 million handshake agreement that Mr. Magnier asserts he reached with Richard Thomson-Moore on August 22, 2023.

During the proceedings, Benjamin Newman, a director of the board of trustees, testified that €50,000 in cash was offered by the Magnier side in two brown envelopes. The envelopes, each containing €25,000, were presented to the Thomson-Moores in September 2023. Mr. Newman indicated that this offer raised a “red flag” and was interpreted by the trustees as a “pure inducement,” which consequently influenced their decision to reject Magnier’s bid.

The court heard that the trustees, who act on behalf of the Thomson-Moore siblings, had initially favored Mr. Magnier’s proposal over that of construction magnate Maurice Regan, who had offered €5 million more for the estate. Mr. Newman explained that the trustees were frustrated by the situation, as they had been prepared to honor Magnier’s offer prior to learning about the cash proposition.

Mr. Magnier’s legal team, seeking enforcement of the alleged agreement, contends that the deal was “unequivocally” settled. In response, the Barne defendants argue that no formal agreement existed since the trustees’ consent was necessary to finalize any sale. Following the controversy, the trustees decided to accept Mr. Regan’s higher offer of €22.25 million.

On September 7, 2023, shortly after the supposed handshake agreement, Mr. Magnier visited the Barne Estate with his son, JP. During this visit, estate agent John Stokes received the brown envelopes containing cash from JP. While the Magnier side described the money as a token of “appreciation” for access to the land, Richard Thomson-Moore expressed shock at the delivery and regarded the cash offer as “untoward.” The funds were later returned by the Thomson-Moores.

In his testimony, Mr. Newman outlined that two critical factors influenced the trustees’ shift away from Mr. Magnier’s offer. The first was the cash offer, which raised significant concerns regarding compliance with “anti-corruption and bribery codes of practice.” The second factor involved due diligence on Mr. Regan’s bid, valued at €22.25 million, nearly a 50 percent increase over Magnier’s final offer of €16 million plus a €500,000 trust for a child of the Thomson-Moores.

Mr. Newman stated that prior to the expiration of the exclusivity agreement at the end of September 2023, the trustees remained committed to Mr. Magnier’s proposal. However, once the exclusivity period lapsed, the transaction became a “purely commercial” decision, ultimately favoring Mr. Regan’s higher financial offer.

In a further development, Mr. Newman noted that Mr. Regan had provided a loan with interest to Barne Estate Ltd to assist with legal costs associated with Mr. Magnier’s court action and had also paid a non-refundable deposit on the estate. He described the €22.25 million figure as “life-changing” and significantly exceeding initial expectations.

As the case continues under the scrutiny of Mr. Justice Max Barrett, the legal and ethical implications of this high-stakes dispute remain to be fully resolved.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.