In July 2011, the NAMA board approved a repayment target for the Avestus loans, but there were errors and inconsistencies in how NAMA arrived at the target. Correcting for these errors and inconsistencies, the repayment target would have been significantly higher. NAMA told Avestus what the approved target amount was. It then went on to agree adjustments to the target with Avestus as the various transactions progressed. As a result, Avestus knew the residual amount NAMA needed to raise through the Project Nantes loan sale in order to achieve its repayment target. The Clairvue offer was very close to that amount.

Where a competitively-based market price for the Project Nantes loans could have been struck cannot now be known. However, without the assurance of a contemporaneous asset valuation and a competitive sales process, I believe there is no basis to conclude that NAMA achieved the best possible financial outturn from the Project Nantes loan sale.

The requirements of section 172(3) of the NAMA Act 2009 prohibits NAMA from selling a loan collateral property to a debtor or an associated debtor who is in default in relation to any NAMA loan. However, this legal prohibition is limited and does not apply to the sale by NAMA of a loan or portfolio of loans. Since Project Nantes involved a loan sale there is no reason to believe that there was any infringement of section 172 of the NAMA Act.

Despite the statutory limitations, NAMA put in place arrangements that required those purchasing loans to make a declaration confirming that the purchaser was not connected to the debtor whose loans it was purchasing. Clairvue and the debtors each made the declarations required by NAMA in relation to the Project Nantes sale. In addition, Clairvue disclosed to NAMA in advance the nature of the fee and performance-related compensation arrangements Avestus had with Clairvue, including arrangements for a number of the debtors to redeem personal loans at a future date.