Le fondateur de l'entreprise plaide devant la Haute Cour que les actionnaires ont tenté d'effacer toute trace de lui.

A company founder has accused shareholders of attempting to "erase all trace" of his involvement in a renewable energy business after a legal battle erupted in the High Court. Marcus Price, co-founder of Soleire Renewables Holdings Ltd, alleges that a coalition of other shareholders, including former business partner Patrick Joseph McCarthy, has orchestrated a campaign to remove him from the company's operations and diminish his historical presence. Price established Soleire Renewables Holdings Ltd alongside McCarthy in 2017, with a 60/40 ownership split. Price's investment came through his company, Glas Valley Investments Ltd, while McCarthy's stake was via Conradh Glás Teoranta. Price assumed the role of managing director, whereas McCarthy took on the position of project manager. However, Price claims that since the entry of German-based investor ILOS IRE Invest GMBH into the fold, the balance of power has shifted dramatically. According to Price, an alliance formed between McCarthy, ILOS, and several other board members has led to actions that violate corporate governance principles and are oppressive toward him. ILOS now holds a 49% stake in the company, while Price and McCarthy collectively maintain 51%. On Wednesday, Judge Brian Cregan issued an interim injunction, granting Price's legal team time until next Tuesday to prevent the board from making decisions regarding the company's affairs, particularly concerning Price's removal as a director. This order was issued ex parte, meaning only Price's side was represented in court. The legal proceedings involve Price's Glas Valley firm suing ILOS, Conradh Glás, McCarthy, and other Soleire directors, including Mark Varian, Nikolaus Krane, and Michael Winter. Soleire has been named as a notice party in the case. The defendants have denied the allegations, with Varian, managing director of ILOS New Energy IRE Holdings Ltd and a former partner at Eversheds Sutherland, rejecting all claims that Price was improperly removed from his directorial role. Legal counsel for Price, Andrew Fitzpatrick, argued that Varian was central to the effort to undermine his client. Price described the situation as "Orwellian," noting that his name had been deleted from the company's website in an apparent attempt to remove him from its history. In an affidavit, Price detailed a "sustained, focused, and wilful campaign" aimed at conducting company affairs in a manner that was oppressive to him. He stated that these actions benefited ILOS while harming both himself and the company. The conflict reportedly began when McCarthy challenged Price over the equity distribution, asserting that his firm, Conradh Glás, deserved an equal share in Soleire. Following this, McCarthy aligned with ILOS-nominated directors, creating an environment where Price felt increasingly isolated. Throughout 2025, Price expressed growing concern about being systematically excluded from key decisions, including new projects and financial discussions. He noted being cut off from communication channels and losing access to the ILOS portal in mid to late 2025. Despite attempts to resolve the issue amicably, Price found himself facing further challenges. After alleging oppressive behavior, which was denied, he opted to collaborate with McCarthy and ILOS to proceed with project tenders. During a board meeting on February 17th, Price used an AI tool to record the session due to his dyslexia and ADHD diagnosis, which affected his ability to take notes effectively. While away from the room, the recording confirmed his suspicions of collusion between McCarthy and Varian. He subsequently shared the recording with another director, Krane, leading to a resolution to hold an extraordinary general meeting to remove Price as a director. However, Price was unable to attend the meeting. The ongoing legal dispute highlights tensions within the company's leadership structure and raises questions about corporate governance practices. As the case progresses, the outcome could influence how such disputes are managed in similar businesses. The court will hear further arguments in the coming days, with the current injunction providing temporary relief for Price as he seeks to protect his interests in the company.