Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Neporent and thank him for his submissions to date and for his statement. I do not doubt his credentials or those of Cerberus in general but there is one line in the statement at paragraph 4.1 to the effect that Cerberus is committed to high ethical standards in the conduct of its business and that this commitment is and always has been a paramount component of its culture and tone at the top. I do not like the tone of this comment. It very much goes to the crux of the issue with regard to Mr. Neporent and his firm. It smacks a little of elitism and a culture that exists. Before Mr. Neporent arrived, we spoke about the auspicious name of the firm, Cerberus, which is the three-headed dog that guards the gates of hell. It is quite interesting because it seems to be guarding a culture of opportunism and, in my view, there was opportunism at play. Mr. Neporent stated that there was an unsolicited approach from Brown Rudnick to the firm but, nonetheless, questions arise in respect of the process in itself.

At the bottom of paragraph 3.3, Mr. Neporent states that at no time prior or subsequent to Cerberus's involvement with Project Eagle did it work directly or indirectly with PIMCO or any other actual or prospective bidder involved in the process relating to project. He also states, at paragraph 3.13, that Brown Rudnick provided Cerberus with due diligence material, a point he confirmed earlier to Deputy Cullinane and two other Deputies. These statements do not tally because there is an indirect link. A moment ago, Mr. Neporent stated Brown Rudnick had a contractual right to share information with Cerberus. This is of concern because in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General there were many complaints by other bidders who stated they did not receive enough information on the portfolio assets or enough time. I am of the view that Cerberus was given an unfair advantage because of the salient and vital information it had on making the bid. It was also the only bidder over the reserve price. It is also very interesting that it had no investment history - Mr. Neporent stated this himself - in Northern Ireland heretofore. Then it engaged this firm which approached it and an opportunity was taken. Cerberus took an opportunity. The risk was taken only on the basis that it would secure the bid. This is the underlying theme. The comment made, almost as an obiter dictumor off-the-cuff remark, about tone at the top indicates this to me.

What is also interesting is that NAMA described the assets as low value but Cerberus was still interested in bidding. I know I have spoken a little bit, but I would like Mr. Neporent to answer some of this for me, if he does not mind.