Do you think the parent company from a different EU member state would have a case if it were shown that Irish law had been unfairly applied?

Imagine this scenario:
Due to the riskiness of their loan portfolios, the majority of bank lenders to the Zoe Group have decided to apply to NAMA to assume their property-related assets. Any large liquidation would force a more realistic (and low) valuation of property-related assets. The current market has very little liquidity so it is hard to value assets. In the case of NAMA, it is difficult for people people who object to NAMA’s asset valuations to justify their claims that valuations should be lower. The banks who participate are likely to get a very favourable price for their assets. Any levy charged by NAMA to the banks to recoup future losses can be objected to or worried about at a later date.

Now lets assume for a moment that ACC Bank have decided that an application to NAMA is not in their interests because their loan portfolios are in relatively better shape and the Zoe Group case is an exception. To maximise the value they can get from their loans, they need to liquidate now rather than later.

If the Supreme Court had granted examinership to a company now proven insolvent, without a credibly sustainable recovery plan and in breach of its covenants, it would seem like preferential treatment to the other lenders (i.e. the NAMA participants). The only bank among the main lenders to the Zoe Group that had not received any state bailout (as far as I know) is ACC (although they did receive a capital injection from Rabobank).

NAMA and participating banks will be under heavy scrutiny by the European Commission for illegal state subsidies and breaches of competition law. Although examinership does not fall under ECJ jurisdiction, a discriminatory application of national law in the context of possible state subsides and anti-competitive practices does.

I’m not a legal expert so I look forward to your corrections and comments…

I am fairly sure that the examinership could not be appealed to the ECJ as it is a piece of 100% domestic legislation.
If it were an ECJ matter, it would have been referred to the ECJ to adjudicate on the relevant point of law.