I am advised by NAMA that fees are not paid to receivers directly by banks or NAMA rather they are paid out of the proceeds of assets under receivership or the management thereof pending realisation. NAMA also advises that the costs incurred through the appointment of receivers to NAMA-managed debtor connection assets are as follows:
The figure for 2012 relates to costs incurred after the NAMA loan acquisition dates. Costs incurred through receiver appointments by participating institutions (PI) are currently being collated by the institutions but are expected to be materially less.
NAMA advises that to the end of June 2012, 235 Receiver appointments had been made to 176 separate debtor connections. There are a number of connections to which more than one receiver firm is engaged, which explains the difference between Receiver appointments (235) and debtor connections (176). NAMA advises that this predominantly occurs in situations where debtors have assets in two or more jurisdictions giving rise to at least two separate appointments or in instances where a combination of corporate and fixed charge receivers are used depending on the asset type and legal security.
The number of receiver appointments by NAMA and PI are detailed below:
NAMA
|
Year
|
No. of Receiver Appointments
|
|
2010
|
58
|
|
2011
|
35
|
|
2012
|
19
|
|
Total
|
112
|
PI
|
Year
|
No. of Receiver Appointments
|
|
2010
|
79
|
|
2011
|
38
|
|
2012
|
6
|
|
Total
|
123
|
NAMA advises that receiver appointments for 2010 include those made prior to the acquisition of the loans by NAMA. Receiver appointments by the PIs include appointments made since acquisition of the loans by NAMA which continued to be managed by the PIs. I am advised that NAMA has selected 30 separate firms in respect of its 112 appointments since 2010. The PIs have engaged 29 separate firms in respect of their 123 appointments.
