Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

15. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 138 of 3 May 2017, if Project Shift was discussed at NAMA Northern Ireland advisory committee meetings; if a person (details supplied) advised the debtor in question involved with Project Shift; if Project Shift was externally valued; when it was decided by NAMA to change it from an asset sale to a loan sale; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23361/17]

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

31. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 138 of 3 May 2015, the number of the 117 prospective investors approached by the loan sale adviser that had originally approached the debtor expressing an interest in the portfolio; if any of these investors were one of the 12 that submitted first round offers or one of the eight invited into the second round of bidding on Project Shift; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23362/17]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 15 together.

The Deputy will be aware that Section 9 of the NAMA Act provides that NAMA is independent in the performance of its functions and that, under Section 10 of the Act, its primary objective is to obtain the best achievable financial return for the State from its acquired loan portfolio.  In this regard, I am advised that NAMA is confident it upheld its mandate in the Project Shift transaction.

The Project Shift sale comprised a portfolio of German property assets held by a Northern Ireland based debtor.  I am advised that the marketing process for Project Shift began in June 2013 as an asset sale being conducted by the debtor with NAMA's consent.  This was in advance of NAMA’s decision in January 2014 to place the Project Eagle loan portfolio on the market for sale.  I am advised that updated valuations for the assets comprising the Project Shift portfolio were secured by NAMA as part of the due diligence process.

As I stated in my reply of 3 May 2017, NAMA, on the advice of Savills, the debtor's sales advisor, consented to the debtor entering into exclusive discussions with Cerberus which had submitted the highest bid after an open, transparent and competitive asset sale process.  However, the Project Shift asset sale did not complete prior to Cerberus being selected as the preferred bidder for the Project Eagle loan portfolio sale.  Given that Cerberus was the ultimate purchaser for both Project Shift and Project Eagle, it made sense to change the Project Shift asset sale to complete as a loan sale and thereby complete the disposal of all of the debtor’s loans to Cerberus.  I am advised that Cerberus and NAMA agreed to convert Project Shift into a loan sale after the NAMA Board selected Cerberus in April 2014 as its preferred bidder for Project Eagle.

I am further advised that the debtor's sale advisor approached some 117 prospective investors and that 12 investors submitted first round offers within the relevant bid deadline.  I am advised that NAMA, acting on the advice of the debtor's sales advisor, Savills, consented to them inviting eight investors into a second round of bidding.  The eight investors were provided with access to a detailed electronic data room to carry out further due diligence.  I am further advised by NAMA that seven of the eight shortlisted investors submitted second round offers by the bid date for this transaction.

The Deputy has sought information on the number of the 117 prospective investors who had originally approached the debtor to express an interest in the portfolio, if any of these investors were one of the 12 that submitted first round offers or one of the eight invited into the second round of bidding.  

The information sought by the Deputy can only be confirmed by the debtor who may have been approached in the context of the Project Shift asset sale.  Given that NAMA no longer has an active engagement with the debtor, NAMA is not in a position to provide the information requested.  

In case there is any misunderstanding or apprehension that contact between potential purchasers and the NAMA debtor was inappropriate in this instance, given that Project Shift was initially marketed as an asset sale, there is no reason why investors should not have approached the debtor, who owned the assets, to indicate their interest in purchasing some or all of the assets.

Finally, I am advised that Project Shift was not discussed at meetings of the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee.  NAMA is not in a position to establish whether the person to whom the Deputy refers advised the debtor in relation to Project Shift.