NAMA claims media coverage of Project Eagle is seriously in error…

Here’s a statement from them this morning…

Screen Shot 2015-07-09 at 08.25.09


Now that does not mean there is not a problem with the purchase arrangements. But this account tallies with several audit office reports done on these transactions on both sides of the border which passed Project Eagle with a clean bill of health.

The PSNI are investing the purchasers, not the sellers (which may be a further reason why Deputy Wallace is unwilling to justify his original privileged remarks in front of any Oireachtas or Stormont Committee).


  • Mr Angry


  • Gazzer

    Sounds a bit like someone who has been accused of a daylight robbery saying that they categorically deny it was that bright

  • chrisjones2

    Based on what we collectively ‘know’ this is all absolutely correct but this is a fine degree of hair splitting and smacks of an organisation under pressure and desperate to distance itself.

    “There is no investigation into the sale” Probably true. Its the other side of the bargain or issues related to that that have been called into question. But that other side seems to form part of the sale process. As NAMA already claimed they excluded PIMCO because of due diligence issues raised by PIMCO it is a bit tenuous to try and disclaim all involvement

    “There is no truth that the £7 m came from sale proceeds” ….that’s for the police to determine where it came from but NAMA is probably true. Again though it appears related to the sale process of which NAMA was part – unless NAMA are suggesting the money came from elsewhere eg the sale of properties to other 3rd parties we don’t already know about

    Finally on the assets being worth what they sold for – they are absolutely correct, provided the sale was managed properly.

  • mickfealty

    Or someone giving us a fairly massive hint on where the investigation needs to go to next….

  • Catcher in the Rye

    Agreed Chris. If the sales process was somehow nobbled by parties either within NAMA or without, then the property could well have been sold at under the market value. And that’s where this was all going because, if a buyer was prepared to pay the fair market value why would it be necessary to employ a third party to “oversee” the transaction ?

  • The Nama chairman has given more relevant information to the PAC in Dublin.

    Nama’s chairman Frank Daly and chief executive Brendan McDonagh faced questions from Dáil members (TDs) at the PAC hearing on Thursday.

    Mr Daly told the committee that the PIMCO bid not go ahead because of the discovery of the involvement of Mr Cushnahan.

    He said Mr Cushnahan was to share in a three-way split of £15m with a US law firm and Ian Coulter, who was then a managing partner of Belfast law firm, Tughans. [added emphasis]

  • Ben De Hellenbacque

    So the figure was once £15m. Is that still the figure or is it just £7m that we know ended up in the offshore bank? Why no exposition given by Daly for what service the £15m was to be paid? Why no exposition given by Daly on the identity of the source of those monies? While NAMA may assert clarification on what could be perceived as misleading reporting they are not exonerated from providing clarification on a transaction that they oversaw.

  • Ben
    The £15million relates to the PIMCO deal, which was nixed by Nama when the PIMCO told them about the payment to a former adviser.
    Nama weren’t paying that £15million any more than they were the source of the alleged £7million.

  • Additionally, it’s important to note that, following the nixing of the PIMCO deal, Nama sought, and received, assurances from Cerberus that no such payments to former advisors were involved in their offer.

  • Ben De Hellenbacque

    Already knowing that is why I wrote the 4th sentence above.

  • Ben De Hellenbacque

    Is that what NAMA understands as due diligence? They may be the least culpable in this murky affair but they still have questions to answer. And no, I am not following Wallace’s (nor for that matter SF’s) personal agenda.

  • D99

    Exactly right Chris: in a closed bidding process like this one, the purchaser’s side of the sale cannot be separated from the overall sale process. If the purchaser has inside information or influence, the whole sale process is corrupted. It’s the responsibility of the seller in this type of process to ensure that this does not happen.

    Did the seller do everything in their power to safeguard the integrity of the process?
    Did the buyer have inside information and/or influence?

    Despite what’s said above about what’s under police investigation, it’s almost certain that the whole sale process will be scrutinised. And clearly, answers to both questions are required.