PAC responds to NAMA correspondence in relation to Committee’s Project Eagle report

In his letter dated 19 April 2017, the NAMA Chairman, Mr Frank Daly, took issue with two Committee's findings which he described as material errors. Disputing the Committee's findings, Mr Daly said that evidence given orally by Mr John Corrigan, former member of the NAMA Board, to the Committee stated that the Board in selling Project Eagle for STG 1.3 billion “were conscious there could be a loss of £180 million”. Mr Daly also disputed the PAC finding which stated that the Board should have been informed of NAMA's meeting with the eventual purchaser, Cerberus, on the day prior to the bid closing date. He stated that two Board members indicated in oral evidence to the Committee that they had been informed.

Committee Chairman Seán Fleming said: “Our report stated that it was our opinion that the Board members were not explicitly informed of the extent of the financial loss that would be incurred. We were not provided with evidence that the Board was specifically informed of this loss.

"And secondly, if for a moment, we accept that it was the case that they were aware of the probability of a loss up to £180 million, then why has NAMA argued so vehemently against the C&AG’s conclusion that the decision to sell the loans at a minimum price of £1.3 billion involved a significant probable loss of value up to £190 million. It simply does not make sense."

"As regards the NAMA Chairman’s point about informing the Board about the meeting with Cerberus, we wrote to NAMA on 13 December 2016 specifically on this matter.

“In that correspondence, we asked ‘Please give us the details of any and all recorded responses, if available, of each of the NAMA board members when they were informed during the board meeting on 3 April regarding the meetings between the Chairman and the Chief Executive and Cerberus on the day before the bids closed. If this was not communicated to the Board members provide a note for why this was the case.’

On 22 December 2016, NAMA responded to the Committee stating and I quote  ‘As is evident from the minutes of the NAMA Board meetings, the meeting with Cerberus was not discussed at Board level as Project Eagle was not discussed at the meeting with Cerberus.’

“This Committee has been very fair to NAMA in trying to establish the facts about what happened. Where we had doubts, we reverted back to NAMA on numerous occasions. If it is the case that NAMA’s written responses which they had time to check and cross-check if that information is wrong, then that is matter for grave concern."

Deputy Fleming concluded by saying: “We will be forwarding a copy of NAMA's Chairman's letter and  this statement to the Commission of Investigation on Project Eagle when it is established.”