Results 5,861-5,880 of 26,408 for speaker:David Cullinane

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: There is a qualification for the 10%. The qualification related to the question of the point when the assets would be sold. Different rates applied at different times.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: The witnesses want us to ignore hindsight when it comes to conflicts of interest but accept hindsight when it comes to discount values.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: With respect-----

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Hold on. With respect, I have three issues I wish to have clarified. I wish to come back in again. I am not interested in whether there are votes or whatever; we have a serious job of work to do.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: We have to try to establish facts. I am asking that we have the opportunity to come back a second time to ask because I want three specific issues clarified.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: I want three issues clarified. I appreciate that the witnesses have come before us and have been very frank. An Teachta Aylward asked about the restrictions that the bid could not be syndicated or finance pre-bid. NAMA put up this defence a number of times; Mr. Daly said this when he appeared before the committee. The restrictions in the process were to avoid what he called "tyre...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Who were the last two bidders in the process?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Does Ms Finan know who the last two bidders in the process were?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: For the record of the committee it was Cerberus and Fortress. Fortress sent us correspondence. I do not know if we can get Fortress's letter up on the screen. It was a serious bidder. We are told by NAMA that its presence was justification that the process was competitive. So it was a serious bidder. On its rationale for making a bid below the reserve price, it talks about the reasons...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: It is quite obvious to where I am directing the witness's attention. Fortress was one of the two bidders left standing. It stated that one of the reasons it made a bid below the reserve price was because it required an unconditional bid and it was not able to syndicate or finance pre-bid. We can get clarification but my reading of it is that if it was in the position to syndicate, Fortress...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Mr. Mulcahy answered the question earlier. I am saying a decision was taken by the board not to allow for syndication or for finance at the pre-bid stage. From what we now know from Fortress, was that a potential mistake, given that it is telling us it could have put in a higher bid? Perhaps Mr. Corrigan could answer, as I have two other quick points to make.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: A cash bid.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: That would happen if the bidders-----

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: My point is that Fortress was a serious bidder. It was the second-last party standing and it indicated this as one of the obstacles. The witness could have a different view but I am entering its view on the record.

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: I have that. I thank the witness. My second point relates to the discount rate, the position in respect of which I will not rehearse. Mr. Mulcahy stated that the Comptroller and Auditor General was wrong. I had this conversation with other board members and representatives from the Department of Finance. Just so we are all clear, in his report the Comptroller and Auditor General does...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: That is the point. There was mischaracterisation of what the Comptroller and Auditor General-----

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: So, we are again clear - for the record of the meeting and in the context of our work - that he was basing it on documentary evidence available and presented to him, based on working out the assets over time. He never stated that they had to be held until 2020. There was a £1.49 billion valuation in terms of assets based on fact. There was no evidence to suggest anything other than...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: I asked the witness earlier. The third and final point is also important and it is directed to Mr. Corrigan. It is very important that we understand what information was given to the board with regard to conflict of interest. Mr. Corrigan was on the board when Mr. Ronnie Hanna would first have informed it that he or somebody else got a call from PIMCO about a problem. There were...

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: Was the board told that Brown Rudnick, Tughans and Mr. Cushnahan were working as a team?

Public Accounts Committee: Special Report No. 94 of the Comptroller and Auditor General: National Asset Management Agency Sale of Project Eagle (Resumed) (17 Nov 2016)

David Cullinane: If the board had been told that, it would have been shocking and quite incredible because he was a board member at that time. I will read from the PIMCO letter. It states "In April 2013, PIMCO was approached by Mr. Tuvi Keinan, a partner at the law firm Brown Rudnick who then introduced PIMCO to Mr. Ian Coulter of Tughans and Mr. Frank Cushnahan". When we asked for that information, we got...