Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 79: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that the figure of €500,000 a month is the amount that a company (details supplied) is charging Irish Bank Resolution Corporation for its advisory services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16027/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The bank has informed me that all details relating to engagements between IBRC and third party advisers are confidential and subject to non-disclosure agreements and that, as a result, the bank cannot disclose any information in this regard.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 80: To ask the Minister for Finance further to Question No. 41 of 7 March 2012, if he will confirm if it is the case that three days after a company (details supplied) was announced as unsuccessful bidders in the US loan sale process that Anglo management subsequently approached the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation board regarding proposed engagement with the company; if he will confirm if Anglo management intended to approach the IBRC board regarding proposed engagement with the company before it was announced that they were the unsuccessful bidders for the US Anglo loan sale; if he will confirm whether Anglo management independently sought out the company for engagement or if the company pitched to Anglo management to engage with them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16028/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

IBRC has confirmed that the investment arm of the company named in the question was a bidder for the purchase of the bank's US loan book in August 2011. Winning bidders were selected following a best and final process and in accordance with best practice. The company referred to in the question was unsuccessful in this process. IBRC independently sought to engage the services of the advisory side of the company referred to in the question. There is no relationship between timing of the loan sale process and the project for advice.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 81: To ask the Minister for Finance if members of staff of a company advisory (details supplied) who are currently working with Irish Bank Resolution Corporation and members of staff of the company investment group ever attended the same meetings together with any member of Anglo management in advance of IBRC awarding the contract for advisory services to the company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16029/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

IBRC has confirmed that members of staff of the advisory company in question, together with members of staff of the investment group in question, attended a meeting with members of staff of IBRC. This was an introductory meeting of both organisations at which the manner of any possible future engagement was discussed. It has been clearly set out in response to previous parliamentary questions on the matter of this engagement that IBRC has retained the services of the "strategic advisory arm" of the company referred to in the question which has been validated by the bank as independent of the "investment arm" of the Group. It has also been previously confirmed that the UK Practice of FTI Consulting provided independent advice to the bank in relation to the appointment of the "strategic advisory arm" of the company referred to in the question. This was designed to ensure that no conflict of interest arises for IBRC in retaining the services of advisory arm of the company referred to in the question in this regard.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 82: To ask the Minister for Finance further to Question No. 41 of 7 March 2012, if he will confirm if the services of a company (details supplied) continue to be retained by IBRC as the initial engagement was for three months and therefore should have expired on 2 March 2012; if this engagement has been extended further, if he will outline the duration for which the company is contracted to provide an advisory service for IBRC; if he will confirm if his officials have found the weekly conference calls with the company beneficial in advising them as how best to maximise the return for the taxpayer through the wind down of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16030/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

IBRC has confirmed that the engagement of the company in question has been extended for a further one month. The weekly calls are part of IBRC's ordinary course of business for which the bank is responsible. My Department dials in to these calls, depending on the agenda, to keep appraised of progress and developments.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 83: To ask the Minister for Finance if similar to the proposals for the National Asset Management Agency, he intends publishing the recommendations given by a company (details supplied) for the wind down of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation; if he does not intend publishing the companies advice if he will explain the reason there is greater public transparency for professional advice given for the wind down of NAMA than there is for IBRC given that both institutions are State owned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16031/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The recommendations referred to in the question arose from a limited review exercise focussed on the organisation and structural elements of NAMA. It did not focus on the commercial strategy of NAMA. IBRC is working in accordance with a plan which has been approved by the EU for the work out of the organisation by 2020. A redacted version of this approved EU plan is in the public domain. The recommendations given by the company in question in support of the achievement of the objectives in this plan will be considered by the Bank. The Bank deems any recommendations put forward by its advisors as commercially sensitive and for this reason the recommendations will not be disclosed.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 84: To ask the Minister for Finance if, given that Bank of Ireland's annual report shows that it has €417 million of outstanding subordinated debt liabilities, the holders of these €417 million subordinated debt liabilities represent subordinated note holders who gambled that he would not go through with using the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 against note holders who did not participate in the subordinated buyback in July 2011; his views that this means that the taxpayer injected €291 million more into Bank of Ireland than would have been necessary had he used the powers available to him to force those who did not voluntarily participate in the nominal 70% haircut into participating. [16033/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bank of Ireland's (the "Bank") Annual Report for the year ended 31 December 2011, states that the outstanding subordinated liabilities in issue amount to €417 million. Adjusting for fair value accounting (€8 million) and excluding preference stock (€39 million) which is not a debt instrument, results in an outstanding unguaranteed subordinated debt amount of €370 million. As previously noted to the Deputy, it is not for the Minister to comment of the investment decisions made by the holders of subordinated debt in the Bank. The powers granted pursuant to CISA continue to be in effect and will be used in the future if necessary.

With regard to achieving burden sharing with subordinated bondholders in all of the banks including the Bank, I draw the deputy's attention to the fact that total capital generated from burden sharing with bond holders since 2008 is in excess of €15 billion. In relation to the Bank's €4.2 billion regulatory core tier 1 capital requirement arising as a result of the 2011 Prudential Capital Assessment Review ("PCAR 2011"), the net cost to the State was €0.2 billion which was sized to maintain a minimum 15% shareholding in the Bank and is less than 5% of €4.2 billion requirement.

As a first step to meet the PCAR 2011 €4.2 billion of regulatory core tier 1 capital, the Bank took various burden sharing measures with subordinated debt holders. This generated ca. €2 billion of capital for the bank. On 11 July 2011 the bank announced the size of the rights issue which was sized by reference to the remaining capital required for PCAR 2011 less the value of the remaining subordinated debt (€0.5 billion) where it was intended to seek further burden sharing.

As a result of further subordinated liability burden sharing in August and September 2011 the bank's remaining capital required to meet PCAR 2011 reduced to €350 million. As the deputy is aware, I noted on 23 November 2011 that the Bank had to raise this €350 million of core tier 1 capital by 31 December 2011 to satisfy the requirements of PCAR 2011. In that context I considered using the powers available under the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 as amended ("CISA") to apply for a Subordinated Liabilities Order ("SLO") to generate, from subordinated liabilities, the residual capital required by the Bank by 31 December 2011.

On 2 December 2011, the Bank announced that it had raised approximately €350 million of core tier 1 capital, through its tender offer and purchase of capital market securities issued by the Bank. As previously noted to the Deputy, as a result of the Bank's announcement and the fact that the totality of the outstanding PCAR 2011 capital required by 31 December 2011 had been raised, the grounds for use of the powers under CISA to raise that capital through burden-sharing no longer arose.