David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the follow up from a number of organisations, this is most important piece of correspondence we have received. It is illuminating and joins up many dots. It clearly contradicts evidence we were given from NAMA. That is very worrying, as it casts doubt on much of what was said to us in the evidence presented by NAMA in respect of what happened when it was made aware of the success or fixer fees. It also vindicates what was in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. It appears that PIMCO is almost in full agreement with the Comptroller and Auditor General's interpretation of the conference call notes. We need to get NAMA legal representatives back before the committee as soon as possible because this is a clear contradiction of what was said.

In fact, what PIMCO is doing is accepting what NAMA's legal people put together in terms of the notes following the conference call. That is the issue here. Their notes - and the appendices based on them - are what the Comptroller and Auditor General based his assumptions on. However, when they came before the committee they tried to put a different interpretation on them. That interpretation is sharply contradicted by what is contained in the correspondence. The position needs to be clarified.

We also need to know whether NAMA was informed of all of this at the time. In other words, when NAMA was first approached by PIMCO, was it given this information in the letter with which we have been presented in terms of April 2013 as a timeline, the fact that a number of parties were involved, including Mr. Cushnahan? This is a serious issue because it raises questions as to the action it took or did not take - or the action it should have taken - in light of the information it was given. It tried to present that this was all retrospective or new information which was brought into the public domain and that it was not aware of it. If the information in this letter was presented to NAMA at that time, that puts a completely different complexion on what NAMA did or did not do. There are also questions about whether the NAMA board was given the full information. Serious questions arise.

There is a question for the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to it also because he has dealt with this matter in his report. He mentioned the association of Mr. Cushnahan with a number of debtors that comprised 50% of the NAMA loan book. One of the Comptroller and Auditor General's observations is that PIMCO had an advantage over other bidders. Given what this letter states, the fact that we now know Mr. Cushnahan was one of those who was part of bringing the information to PIMCO and that an opportunity had arisen - and in light of the fact that we know he would have had some knowledge but that he had an association with debtors - in the Comptroller and Auditor General's opinion, what advantage would this have given PIMCO over, for example, Fortress or other bidders?