Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 132: To ask the Minister for Finance the number of business plans furnished to date to National Asset Management Agency in respect of acquired assets; the months and year in which such plans were submitted; the number of business plans awaiting consideration and not yet examined; the number examined and still under consideration; and the number to date agreed in original or modified form. [34191/10]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 133: To ask the Minister for Finance the number of business plans received by National Asset Management Agency offered to date to designated accountancy firms for their consideration; the number of occasions on which such firms have declined to accept such work in respect of individual plans; the reasons, if any, given for them doing so; and if he will detail the number of business plans that remain to be assessed in circumstances in which firms have declined to undertake such assessment. [34192/10]

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 134: To ask the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to concern that has been expressed at the length of time being taken by National Asset Management Agency to consider business plans submitted to it in respect of acquired assets; if the length of time being taken is rendering business plans submitted out of date and exacerbating the difficulties being experienced by companies in continuing trading; if such delays expose NAMA and the State to an unnecessary risk of incurring financial losses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34193/10]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 132 to 134, inclusive, together.

I am informed by NAMA that the debtors whose loans were acquired as part of the first and second tranche transfers are at various stages of progress in terms of the submission and review of their business plans. The task of the NAMA Board is to assess, for each debtor, the ultimate viability of that debtor, given the scale of his debts and the quality of the assets securing them.

In the case of the ten Tranche 1 debtors, draft plans have been through a number of iterations and are either being reviewed by the NAMA Board or will be reviewed over the coming weeks. It is reasonable to point out that a review of debtors, some of whom have aggregate debts running into billions, is not an exercise that can be carried out quickly, given the scale and complexity involved. At this stage, many of the Tranche 2 debtors have submitted or are about to submit draft business plans and a similar process is being followed with them.

To the extent that there have been delays in the process, it has been caused by the initial failure of some debtors to submit plans in line with the detailed template provided by NAMA. Some debtors were also asked to revise their original assumptions and projections so as to bring them into line with a realistic outlook for supply and demand for the various asset classes and geographical regions in which they operate.

The Deputy's raises a question in relation to independent business reviewers who have declined assignments offered by NAMA. I understand that a small number of firms have done so and have indicated to NAMA their dissatisfaction with the proposed fee arrangements.