I propose to take Questions Nos. 142 to 144, inclusive, together.
As I pointed out in my replies to parliamentary questions 82 and 83 of 13 April 2017, NAMA initiated a targeted marketing process for the sale of the Project Tolka portfolio based on its assessment that such a process would yield a superior return to alternative options, as required by reference to its obligations under Section 10 of the NAMA Act. I also pointed out that the advice of NAMA's loan sale adviser, Eastdil Secured, was that such an approach would ensure competitive tension and significantly enhance the proceeds generated for NAMA.
In my previous responses, I also noted that preparatory work in relation to the sale took at least two years. This debtor connection comprised over 180 individual debtors with the majority of the debt concentrated among three principal debtors. Over that period, I am advised there were extensive discussions between NAMA and the principal debtors. I am further advised that, at various points during those discussions, references were made by representatives of the debtor connection to informal approaches which had been made by some investors seeking to purchase particular assets. Given that NAMA no longer has an active engagement with the debtor connection, it is not possible at this time for NAMA to compile accurate data as to which of the original sixteen potential bidders had indicated an interest to the debtor connection in one or more of the assets securing the portfolio.
I am advised by NAMA that one of the three final bidders had expressed an interest to the debtor connection in one or more of the assets securing the loans in the portfolio and that another of the final three bidders had expressed its interest to both NAMA and the debtor connection. I am further advised that NAMA was separately approached directly by one other potential bidder, which was not one of the final three bidders.
I am advised that, in its discussions with the debtor connection, NAMA engaged with representatives of the three principal debtors. NAMA understands that the three principal debtors were in a position to represent the views of most, if not all, of the other debtors. Given that the three principal debtors had the majority of the connection’s debt, it is likely that any investors interested in acquiring assets would have communicated with these principal debtors. In addition, I am advised that, before making a decision to sell the portfolio, NAMA engaged in a debtor representations process. I am advised that this involved writing to all debtors within the connection and requesting their views on NAMA's proposed intention to sell their loans. This provided all debtors in the connection with an opportunity to raise any matters relating to the loan sale including any feedback regarding the selection of potential bidders. I am advised that 253 letters seeking written representations from debtors were issued by NAMA as part of this process and that all responses received were reviewed by NAMA's Credit Committee before the final decision to proceed with the loan sale was made.
