Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

51. To ask the Minister for Finance if there were concerns raised within his Department regarding the due diligence information made available to a person (details supplied) when considering a significant share purchase in a bank (details supplied) in 2010; if that concern arose due to the fact the same information was not put into the public domain, therefore possibly facilitating shareholder oppression; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16429/17]

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

The bank in question was required by the Central Bank of Ireland, its regulator, to raise new capital as part of its 2011 Prudential Capital Assessment Review (PCAR). As the State was a shareholder at the time, it faced the prospect of injecting further capital into the bank to protect its investment and support the bank at a time when economic and financial conditions were extremely challenging. However following an approach by a consortium of international investors, the State took the decision to exercise its rights to acquire the new shares being offered by the bank by way of primary issuance, but then subsequently sold on the majority of these shares at no loss or profit. This reduced the taxpayer's net investment and had the associated benefit of signalling to the market that high quality international, professional investors were prepared to invest in Irish banks at a critical time for our country.

In order to facilitate this sale of shares by the State, the Bank concerned made presentations to, and facilitated detailed due diligence by, each of these investors in relation to the Bank's business and investment strategy and progress made in restructuring and repositioning itself, including the Bank's pivotal role in helping revitalise the Irish economy.  These were decisions made by the Board and management of the bank and any associated disclosure obligations were also a matter for the bank. I note that the sale of shares by the State did not, in itself, result in dilution for other shareholders. If the Deputy has any concerns that other shareholders were oppressed as part of this transaction then she should consider raising such concerns with the relevant regulatory authorities.