Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Okay. The witness has said that and there is a conflict there. Let us look at page 112, paragraph 4 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. PIMCO were in the process from a very early stage, not with NAMA, according to the witnesses, but with Brown Rudnick and Tughans from April 2013. They went forward to September and through the various board meetings. On 8 January 2014, a decision was made by NAMA. Paragraph 4, page 112 reads as follows:

In parallel, PIMCO were permitted to complete their due diligence on the "tail" of the Eagle Portfolio and formalise their bid. AR would, at this juncture, meet with PIMCO to advise them of the intended approach regarding the other short-listed investors noting that this would be as much to protect PIMCO's interests with regard to the integrity and the credibility of the disposal process;

One could be forgiven for assuming from this that it was more or less a cover of an open process. The witness can come back and correct me. Reading this, PIMCO had been involved for a long time and had invested an awful lot of money and time. NAMA was happy with PIMCO. NAMA then had an open process with very limited time and directions for Lazard, as well as other matters that restricted the process. I put it to Mr. Daly that NAMA did that to cover PIMCO and to keep it in the race at all costs, but to give the illusion that it was a competitive process.