Mr. Brendan McDonagh:

No, because we always had the same concerns about this debtor connection and the significant exposure to other third party banks. It was highlighted in the business plan, which was reviewed and sent to the board by the independent business reviewer and to my internal team at the time, that there was a real risk that if the third-party creditors moved against these people, the whole business would collapse and go into liquidation, and we would have lost the asset-management platform of Avestus to manage these assets, which were in multiple jurisdictions and were quite complex in their financial structuring, which they fully understood. Their help was needed to unwind - let us put it that way. We always share that concern.

To be clear with the committee, all the debtors in NAMA have made efforts to get out of it. That is just the nature of the business and it is very understandable. Avestus was trying to find people to back it and to get its loans out of NAMA. Another major US real estate fund had expressed interest before Clairevue and backed out, and then Clairevue came along and made an offer.

It also wanted to make an offer wherein we would give it indemnities and underwrite its due diligence costs, both of which we refused to do. Even in January 2012, when we decided to proceed with the offer to Clairevue, we knew these concerns were still there and that these debtors were very vulnerable to third-party actions. At the same time, in January 2012, we decided that we would not sell the discrete asset in Paddington as we would be better of continuing to fund it and finishing it. As a result of that decision, we turned it from a €75 million valuation to €104 million. We were constantly evolving our strategy to make sure we could get the maximum out of the connection but at the same time the vulnerabilities attached to these debtors always existed and it was a real risk to us in terms of management.