Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

That is just the second point.

The third point is that this is a normal feature of IPOs, where one withholds in a staggered process shares which are in the remit of the underwriters — it is not a question of veto by Government — to ensure that there is an orderly bringing to the market of the stock being purchased. One only holds it in the event that the share price goes under the bid price. One would put those shares out onto the market to support the bid price and to make sure it gets above the share price that was issued. When the share price was above €2.20, there was no need to hold those shares because they were part of the staggered process of an orderly floating of the stock. That is a normal feature of IPOs. There is nothing unusual about it and clearly it worked properly.

The price was obviously set at €2.20 on the strong advice of advisers in order to get the best possible membership of shareholding that would be committed to long-term investment in the company. Quite correctly, as is normal for a successful IPO, there was a 10% premium in the price so that people would go in and buy at that price. There was also the question of ensuring that one had sufficient shareholding floated on the stock market to bring in the sort of institutional investors who would take a long-term view of their shareholding and not take a speculative shareholding as Deputy Boyle suggests.

One then saw subsequently, with the intention of Mr. O'Leary to bid, a monopoly premium going into the price, speculating on the proposed bid that he has yet to formally make. Once he makes that bid, he has 45 days in which to acquire the stock.

The issue is clear. There was not a botched offer. This was an excellent sale of this stock as a result of management and other advisers getting support for its floatation internationally. The over allotment of shares is part of a staggered process, which is a normal feature of IPOs. It is only held and released in the event of the bid price going under the initial share price. That was not the case and therefore there was no need to hold onto that stock. That is the situation. It is explicable for anyone who has an acquaintance with the IPO as an offering.

See this speech in context