Injunction preventing the sale of loans by bank not in the public interest

Application for an interlocutory injunction – two companies that control licensed premises and their directors seeking an order preventing bank from divesting, selling or transferring to any third party any right, interest or obligation under any of the loans between the parties – first company entered into a derivative agreement or Swap with the bank in respect of a notional liability of €3.5m - Other hedging arrangements were entered into attendant upon this agreement – second company entered into a derivative agreement with the bank in relation to a notional liability of €4.6m which also imposed an obligation on the second named plaintiff to undertake hedging arrangements to cover some of its liability to the defendant – company director entered into personal guarantees with the defendant securing a number of the financing arrangements between two companies and the bank - aggregate amount of the indebtedness of the plaintiffs under these various agreements is around €18.2m - loans are all performing but are short term loans which have over the years been consistently rolled over - companies argue that as a result of the financing arrangements between the parties there has been significant overcharging on the loan accounts – companies argue that certain financial instruments were mis¬sold to them - argue that they have an equitable right of set off so that any award of damages which they may receive in relation to this matter may be used to reduce the indebtedness which the defendant asserts is owed by the plaintiffs to it on foot of the instruments in question - whoever buys the bundles of loans may not continue the practice of consistently rolling over their short-term loans - concerned about the fate of the two hundred and fifty employees throughout their business - loan agreements between the parties which are the subject of these proceedings are currently in the process of being sold by the liquidators of the bank - invited the plaintiffs to make representations - schedules setting out Ministerial Instructions for the conduct of the liquidation issued by the Minister for Finance to the special liquidators - criteria identified by the special liquidators for the marketing of loans in portfolios or individually - the criteria for defining any prospective bidder - bank decided that their loans would not be sold individually or with other connected loans but as part of a large portfolio given the name "Stone" - regard to the size of the plaintiffs' loans and the extent to which they would have a meaningful impact on the overall value of the portfolio, the likely credible interest from qualified bidders and in order to maximise sales realisations in the public interest - standard principles regarding interlocutory injunctions – whether the bank in reaching their decision to offer the plaintiffs' loans as part of a portfolio sale rather than making them available for bidding on an individual basis, has provided adequate – duty to give reasons – whether judicial review is appropriate – argued that the decision within the realm of public law and is therefore subject to judicial review - right to be heard - defendant to these proceedings has a duty to act in a fair and reasonable manner –bank characterised the claims made by the plaintiffs as a claim for a right to bid for their loans, as a right to have the special liquidators negotiate with them in terms of their bid and a right to purchase their loans at a value which is below par – plaintiffs delayed in making the application - adequacy of damages – balance of convenience.