Seán Fleming (Laois, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I refer to page 94 of the report, which we spoke about earlier. The last sentence of 5.24 states: "NAMA considers that the integrity of the process was preserved by PIMCO's withdrawal." Paragraph 5.25 states:

It is not clear how any other steps NAMA might take could have any relevance to the completion of the transaction, particularly given that Mr Cushnahan was no longer a member of the NIAC. NTMA Compliance has indicated that, given the information available at the time, there was no additional action that it could have advised to be taken that had not already been taken by NAMA.

Paragraph 5.24 also states: "NAMA has stated that although Mr Cushnahan was no longer a member of the NIAC at the time of PIMCO's disclosure and never had access to debtor information, the Board considered the potential payment to Mr Cushnahan was a significant issue because, if implemented, it created a significant reputational risk for NAMA". How do the witnesses know the fee was not implemented? They seem very definite. The advisers moved to Cerberus from PIMCO. I am not making any suggestion. How can NAMA be sure that when they moved to Cerberus, a success fee was not still in play? We are coming to the undertaking the chairman referred to here a month ago.