Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I also believe things will improve for the Republic and the North of Ireland if there is more clarity about what happened with Project Eagle. I have a number of questions the Government should deal with; after all, NAMA is an agent of the State.

Mr. Frank Daly has confirmed that Mr. Frank Cushnahan, formerly a member of NAMA's Northern Ireland advisory committee, was one of the central participants and a prospective beneficiary of the PIMCO fee arrangement. A question naturally arises as to what service he had rendered to PIMCO to justify his inclusion in this arrangement and when. Did he provide external parties with confidential information which would provide them with an advantage over other bidders? Is it not an implied term that Mr. Cushnahan, through his former association with NAMA and subsequent involvement with a fund interested in the purchase of NAMA loans, would be placed in a position that would give an unfair advantage to PIMCO?

Why was PIMCO prepared to split £15 million between Belfast solicitors, Tughans, New York lawyers, Brown and Rudnick, and a former NAMA committee member, Mr. Cushnahan? When exactly did NAMA know of Mr. Cushnahan's involvement with the PIMCO fee arrangement? Why was no comment ever made on this fee arrangement until the Committee of Public Accounts hearing this month?

We are on notice that Mr. Cushnahan operated out of an office in Northern Ireland law firm, Tughans. Why and when did he have an office in Tughans? Tughans could not comment on when he took up the office space and if he was operating from it and making use of its facilities while he was a representative of NAMA.

NAMA has stated Mr. Cushnahan never had access to confidential information. Given that his potential input was deemed worthy of his inclusion in a lucrative fee arrangement with PIMCO, is it not plausible that he was using confidential or insider information to distort and prejudice the bid process in order that PIMCO would benefit from same?

Why did the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, not inform the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of this information, or did he? Why did he decide not to intervene in suspending the sale of the NAMA assets in the North to Cerberus, particularly when he was on notice that the prospective sale to Cerberus involved the same group of people who were part of the PIMCO arrangement? NAMA and the Minister were aware that a questionable arrangement had been negotiated between a number of parties which would have prejudiced the open-market bidding process, yet nothing was done to prevent or suspend the determination on the overall sale and bid, even in circumstances where the same law firm acting for PIMCO was acting for the ultimately successful bidder, Cerberus.

Was there no concern on the part of the Minister and NAMA that Brown Rudnick was conflicted in representing Cerberus, the successful bidder in the loan sale, having already represented PIMCO, a company which had entered into a fee arrangement with a former NAMA representative in the very same loan sale? Have the Dublin or London offices of Brown Rudnick acted for debtors or loan or asset purchasers in relation to NAMA previously? If so, for whom did it act? Has any of these deals been off market?

What other dealings has Tughans had with NAMA, either as counsel to NAMA or acting for debtors or other buyers or potential buyers of loans? Was Mr. Cushnahan involved in any other arrangement with prospective bidders for NAMA loan sales prior to the PIMCO revelation?

What role, if any, did Mr. Ron Bolger, former managing partner in KPMG Dublin, as Cerberus' main representative in Ireland, have in this transaction? Did anyone for or on behalf of NAMA ever meet him?

What fees did Cerberus pay A&L Goodbody and Linklaters which, as outlined by Mr. Brendan McDonagh at the Committee of Public Accounts hearing, advised Cerberus until such time as PIMCO was forced to opt out of the bid process? Can it be guaranteed that Brown Rudnick did not enter into a similar fee arrangement with Cerberus for the Northern Ireland loan portfolio?

Mr. Daly advised that it was NAMA's understanding Cerberus had instructed Tughans, only after PIMCO had pulled out of the bid. Can this be confirmed or were other funds using the same law firms concurrently?

Mr. Daly openly stated during the Committee of Public Accounts hearing that NAMA did not have a problem with Brown Rudnick or Tughans. He explained that the issue for NAMA was Mr. Cushnahan's involvement in the PIMCO arrangement. Can this really be its position when Mr. Cushnahan was, in fact, working within the law offices of Tughans? Can NAMA object to Mr. Cushnahan's involvement in the PIMCO arrangement without objecting to Tughans?

Mr. McDonagh asserted at the Committee of Public Accounts hearing that Cerberus had bought the Northern Ireland loan portfolio for £1.241 billion. We have been consistently told by NAMA that the portfolio was sold for significantly more, that is, £1.3 billion sterling. Mr. McDonagh at the Committee of Public Accounts hearing continually erred in outlining that the ultimate sale price was £1.3 billion sterling subsequent to conceding at the very same hearing that the actual number realised was, in fact, nearly £60 million less.

Why did Cerberus change lawyers after PIMCO's withdrawal from the bid? It surely raises question marks when the bidding party determines that its existing representation, Linklaters, one of the world's largest law firms, should be replaced by another firm in the midst of the bidding process. What advantages did Cerberus see in bringing in Brown Rudnick? Did NAMA not think it dubious that this decision was made, particularly in circumstances where Brown Rudnick had been central to the fee arrangement previously negotiated through PIMCO?

There are so many questions the Government needs to answer.

See this speech in context