Naturana has become a pariah in Ireland as a result of a series of high-profile legal actions by its founder.
The Irish Times understands that the company has spent the past few years trying to fend off the allegations of a cover-up and its own wrongdoing.
But in recent months, its fortunes have taken a dramatic turn, and its legal battle with the Department of Justice (DoJ) has become the subject of a media frenzy.
A number of articles in Irish media have focused on the alleged cover-ups and the fact that the DoJ is investigating the company’s activities.
This article is the first in a series that will examine the company and its many legal challenges, as it seeks to reclaim its image and reputation in Ireland.
The company’s legal saga started when the Doj issued a warrant for its assets in May 2018, demanding information about its tax affairs.
The Doj sought data on its tax arrangements with the US, Canada, Singapore, Mexico and India.
This included details on how the company spent its profits and income, as well as its assets and liabilities.
The documents were made public through a Freedom of Information request in May 2019.
The Dáil is due to debate the warrants at the beginning of next year.
But the Doji has since moved to take the case to the High Court.
In June 2020, the Dojo held a public hearing before a panel of judges, where the company was represented by solicitor Michael Kavanagh.
Mr Kavanah, who is also a barrister, said that the Dáíl could not be expected to do anything to assist the company.
In response, the Dóil on July 22nd unanimously passed an amendment to the Companies Registration Act that said that any request for tax information must be made by an individual who “has a legitimate interest in the subject matter”.
This was interpreted by many as a blanket declaration of the company as a foreign tax haven.
The amendment was rejected by the Díl in a 13-5 vote.
In the wake of the hearing, Naturna issued a statement saying that the amendment was “an attempt to circumvent the rules of the European Court of Justice”.
In December 2020, Nausicaa International Group, which is a subsidiary of Naturanas parent company, Nauta, filed a lawsuit in the High Courts against the DoJo for “improperly withholding” information about Naturanas tax arrangements.
The lawsuit said that Nausicana had been unable to provide any details of its financial accounts in Ireland, and that the information was being withheld as a way of “preventing an independent assessment of its tax and legal obligations”.
The Dojo also brought legal action against Nautas on behalf of other entities in the US.
Natura has also sought a judicial review of the Doje decision in relation to Nausicanas US activities, but has yet to make any progress in the matter.
In October 2020, a Supreme Court judge in New York ruled that the doje should be obliged to hand over information about the activities of Nausicas subsidiaries.
This ruling followed an appeal against a ruling by the European Commission in June that Nautia had not had enough information about how it spent its money and profits.
Mr Kerry said that this was an example of how we must protect Ireland’s companies and ensure that companies are accountable.
He added that this case was not just about Nausicus, but Naturannas as well.
“This is a case about Ireland’s tax laws.
It’s a case of the sovereignty of the people and their rights.
It should not be about a company that’s doing well,” he said.
Mr Kirchner said that it was important that this decision reflected the importance of companies to the Irish economy and that it should be viewed as a warning that “we should all be very vigilant in protecting ourselves”.
He added: “It’s important that when companies are doing well that they’re accountable for their financial statements and how they spend their money.
They should be transparent.
They have to be accountable for what they are doing, so that it’s in the public interest.”
Irish taxpayers will have to pay up to €300,000 in compensation to Nautains subsidiary.
The case is currently before the High Commission of Ireland, which could take a number of months to decide.
Mr Murphy said that he had heard from members of the Irish public who were deeply concerned by the revelations about Nautanas tax affairs, which had not been shared with the public.
Mr O’Sullivan, who chaired the commission, said it was not a case that could be “dismissed on the basis that there was not sufficient information”.