Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of issues arise. First, this letter is a game-changer. It sets out a number of troubling facts but, as troubling as they are, they clarify what were gaps in the sequence of events and our understanding of what happened and why. It now seems that Project Eagle was conceived of not by PIMCO, as NAMA had asserted, but by Brown Rudnick, along with Tughans and Mr. Frank Cushnahan. Obviously, this needs serious investigation, as the Chairman said. We need to seek the assistance of Mr. Tuvi Keinan of Brown Rudnick. I want to make the committee aware that I had occasion to correspond with Mr. Keinan in July 2015. At that stage, his professional résumé at Brown Rudnick boasted sourcing and executing an off-market discounted UK loan portfolio sale from NAMA, Ireland's national bad bank, 2011. I was alarmed to read that. I corresponded with the committee at the time and with NAMA, which came back and said that, as far as it was aware, Mr. Keinan had worked for Morgan Stanley, which had been a successful bidder in a previous transaction, but it very much distanced itself from any knowledge of Mr. Keinan and now, lo and behold, his name appears here. It is not only that we need to hear from Brown Rudnick, we also need to invite Mr. Keinan to come before us because he is specifically cited in the correspondence.

In the context of the issue on which we pressed NAMA at all levels - the board, the chief executive officer and the chairman - regarding its contention that PIMCO had connived to remain within the process and had sought its acquiescence, this letter flatly contradicts that position. That position was defended by board members in fairly trenchant terms. Those board members need to return and give an explanation.

The most troubling aspect of all is that the matter relating to April 2013 appeared in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report because it is detailed in contemporaneous notes of telephone calls and also is referred to in the board minutes. What I want to know is has NAMA been less than truthful with this committee? Has it been less than fulsome in terms of the information it has given as to who knew what and when? We need to get to the bottom of that matter.

Mr. Rice, who has written to us from PIMCO, was party to those telephone conversations in respect of the fixer's or success fee. It is extremely important that we hear from Mr. Ronnie Hanna who was a key player, a key conduit for the board and who spoke on behalf of the board on these matters. It is essential that we seek to have him come before the committee.

We focused very much on Mr. Cushnahan in respect of the fixer's or success fee and the inappropriateness of this payment. This letter points to a much deeper problem in respect of Mr. Cushnahan. It is not just that he was in line for a fee, it is that he was at the heart of matters from the very beginning and right through to the execution of this sales process. It seems from this letter that NAMA was aware of that, namely, that he was not a bit player or somebody who was on the side and due to receive a fee, but rather a mover and shaker in the whole process. Very careful language is used in this letter in order to make that point clear.

They referred to Mr. Cushnahan's role and the potential for the fee. It is important, as we examine matters, that we understand the importance of all of that.