News this afternoon reported by the Irish Times that NAMA has appointed a statutory receiver, Paul McDowell of Knight Frank, to certain properties owned by top 10 developer, Derek Quinlan. This comes just days after it was reported that Derek Quinlan and partner Glenn Maud had put the Citibank building in London’s Canary Wharf on the market, it having been one of the UK’s most expensive property deals when it was bought for GBP £1bn in 2007. There have been rumours about the level of co-operation provided by Derek Quinlan to NAMA – on one hand, a car park in Mayfair belonging to a Quinlan company was being sold at NAMA’s behest but it seems that sale has stalled, and his 35% share in the Maybourne group of luxury London hotels was being sold to the Barclay brothers and on the other hand there were rumours of non-cooperation with NAMA. Who knows the true story but it seems that NAMA has terminated its overtures with the appointment of a statutory receiver.
NAMA is building quite a portfolio of receiverships, most notably the recent appointment of receivers to companies in Paddy Kelly’s sphere of control. But other recent receiverships seem to have slipped below the mainstream media radar including
(1) Adelphi Way Developments and International Airport Hotel, both associated with the McCormack family
(2) Deerbay Properties associated with the Kilmurrays including William (Bill) Kilmurray
(3) Steamboat Developments Limited associated with former rugby player/manager, Pat Whelan
NAMA has appointed receiverships in numerous other cases including to companies associated with Bernard McNamara, Liam Carroll, Ger O’Rourke, Paddy Doyle, Paddy Burke and John Fleming, to name a few. And in the UK, it has appointed administrators to companies, possibly the most high-profile being the Beetham Organisation.
Remember, there is a regularly updated spreadsheet showing all of NAMA’s reported receiverships and court actions under the Developers Tab above. Any statement from NAMA or Knight Frank in respect of Derek Quinlan’s receivership will be posted here.
UPDATE: 14th April, 2011. This is the statement from NAMA
“NAMA appoints Statutory Receiver to recover debts from Derek Quinlan and family members
Thursday 14th April 2011. The National Asset Management Agency [NAMA] has appointed Statutory Receivers to take charge of a number of properties owned personally by Derek Quinlan and members of his immediate family on foot of the debtors’ failure to present and agree an appropriate Business Plan for the repayment of loans owed to the Agency. Mr. Paul McDowell of Knight Frank Ireland has been appointed by NAMA as the Statutory Receiver.
A spokesman for NAMA warned that other debtors of the Agency could face similar action; “If debtors are unrealistic or uncooperative in their dealings with NAMA, we won’t hesitate to appoint Receivers to protect the taxpayer’s interests.””
UPDATE: 17th April, 2011. There are nine properties controlled by NAMA as a result of last Thursday’s action by NAMA – the properties are said to have been owned by Derek Quinlan, his wife Siobhan, his daughter (Caroline Brooks, nee Caroline Quinlan) and his daughter’s husband (Matthew Brooks). The following would appear to be eight (UPDATE: 21st April, 2011. Possibly nine) of the nine:
(1) No 8 Raglan Road , Ballsbridge D4 (UPDATE: 14th September, 2011. Now on the market at 5m with Knight Frank, the 10,000 sq ft offices in a Victorian building are said to be in immaculate condition)
(2) 43, Ailesbury Road bought for €8.5m in 2007 along with a mews house 18, Ailesbury Road for which he reportedly paid an additional €3m currently on the market for €2.95m through Lisney (pictured here). (UPDATE: 3rd October 2011. The Sunday Business Post reports that the two properties have been sold for a combined total of €2.5m. The Irish Independent reports the SBP story a day later)
(3) 29 and 30 Fitzwilliam Square
(4) an apartment in the 5-star Merrion Hotel, worth a reported €1m today (UPDATE: 21st September, 2011 sold for €2m according to the Irish Independent today)
(5) “Derrymore” (pictured here), at6 Shrewsbury Road. a 5,000 sq ft semi-detached purchased in the mid-1990s for IR £1.5m (€1.9m)
(6) 1 & 3 Shrewsbury Road(pictured here) are adjoining semi-detached houses for which he paid €27m in 2006
(7) UPDATE: 21st April, 2011. It is not clear if No 1 Elgin Road (see picture here) which is presently on the market with Lisneys is one of the properties subject to control of the NAMA receiver, but the property is said to be from Derek Quinlan’s “portfolio”. The property is 4,000 sq ft, refurbished to a high standard and it looks like it has kept its original garden and hasn’t ceded it for development. The asking price is €2.95m (UPDATE: 15th September, 2011. It is reported in today’s Irish Times that a sale of this property may be imminent with the government of Belgium mentioned as the buyer with the aim of making the property its embassy to Ireland. The newspaper claims that the sale price may be “somewhat less” than the €2.95m asking price.)
Not subject to the NAMA receivership is the 8-bedroom villa in Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat (or plainly Cap Ferrat) in the south of France, reportedly bought for €75-100m (the British Times newspaper says it was bought for €40m with a further €20m spent refurbishing it) and subject to a €64m loan from Barclays Bank and said to be for sale today – prices of €39m and €73m have been bandied about. Or commercial properties, for example the Citi Tower in Canary Wharf in London’s docklands which was put on the market earlier this week apparently at NAMA’s behest. Or the more valuable Banco Santander office building inMadrid which may not be subject to a NAMA loan at all. Derek Quinlan is understood to be presently living in a rented property at Epalinges near Lausanne in Switzerland.
UPDATE: 30th April, 2011. It seems that one of the two properties that Derek Quinlan owns on Manhattan’s East 64th Street is close to being sold having been on the market for two years. No 20 (picture here), it is reported, has been sold though the buyer and the purchase price remain a mystery for now. It had an asking price of USD $29.5m, having been bought by Derek in 2005 for USD $26.2m – it initially had a price tag of USD $37m when first put on the market in 2009. The 13,000 sq ft townhouse is reportedly subject to a Citigroup mortgage and is not subject to the NAMA receivership action reported above. Derek still owns 54 East 64th Street (pictured here) which was up to recently on the market with a price tag of USD $25m.
UPDATE: 18th August, 2011. No 20 on East 64th Street has sold for USD $23m, according to the New York Post.
UPDATE: 25th August, 2011. It is reported in the Irish Independent that the property receiver for the eight Quinlan properties has agreed prices for five of them. Paul McDowell, managing director of Knight Frank in Ireland refused to identify the properties until sales are completed.
UPDATE: 14th October, 2011. The Irish Independent claims, citing an unidentified report, that Derek Quinlan has sold a second “Upper East Side townhouse”, presumably no 54 East 64th Street, for USD 25m. This sale, like the other one at no 20, is not directly connected to NAMA loans.
NAMA Wine Lake 
The Nama receivership of Quinlan is interesting. The media did not predict this, and are very poor at informing us as to what is actually going on in Nama. The Sunday Times published Nama were sending receivers into Sean Dunne a couple of weeks ago, that never happened and was not even on the cards. On the contrary Dunne and Mulryan are in Nama’s good books at the moment. Media reports on Quinlan gave the impression he was cooperating with Nama and had reached agreement with them, the sale of his house on Shrewsbury Road and putting his Ailesbury Road house on the market made it appear that he was giving in to all of their demands. The media are also giving us the impression Treasury are well got with Nama, is this the case? It will be interesting to find out if they closed in on Quinlan because he was not cooperating, or because Nama decided he had good assets they would rather be in control of and flog themselves. We need to be wary of Nama consultants and employees beign driven by the desire to create secure well paid jobs for themselves for the next couple of years rather than making decisions that are economically sound.
@Media, the Sean Dunne report of receivership was indeed interesting and was not regarded as accurate on here. There was a denial, allegedly by Sean Dunne’s spokesman which was produced on less-than-mainstream media. An inquiry to Mountbrook from here was not responded to but the Sunday Times report was not regarded as accurate.
With Derek Quinlan, I think co-operation has ebbed and flowed and at times, it appeared that he would reach some sort of agreement with NAMA.
With respect to Treasury, this is what it said two days ago “NAMA: As previously indicated, the Group submitted a comprehensive business plan in May 2010 for NAMA’s review. The initial evaluation process is now complete resulting in a signed Memorandum of Understanding, the terms of which are non-binding and intended to form the basis for further negotiations. NAMA will monitor the Group’s subsequent performance to ensure that it adheres to targets contained in the Memorandum of Understanding and, subject to the further negotiations referred to above, binding facility agreements will be entered into.” http://www.realestateopportunities.co.uk/News.htm
That doesn’t seem particularly committed to me. NAMA is building up quite a tally of receiverships which might be because of lack of co-operation, no-hope cases or for other reasons.
NWL, Steamboat was covered in at least two national papers fom memory
@Neil, you might be right but if you google steamboat nama and [either receivership or receiver] there doesn’t appear to be any news results. Indeed search for NAMA and steamboat for a date after 1st March 2011 and there also doesn’t appear to be any news result. Do you have a link or are you guessing?
To be best of my knowledge not one developer has got beyond the Memorandum of Understanding phase. This Quinlan move may or may not be justified, but appears to me to be an effort to intimidate at least two other top developers who are standing their ground at the moment at what they perceive to be hugely unjust and commerically unsound requests by Nama – including actions by Nama to sabotage their own efforts to sell property and thus loans to overseas investors. Too many consultants want to keep their hands in, ie keep quids in. Too many light weights want to ensure they get the gig and big bucks for running complex companies that are in fairness being run well and very economically by developers at the moment. How wise was the McNamara receivership and how much money is going to be spent trying to simply understand on lawyers and accountants trying to get a grip on the complex nature of the corporate organisation? Also how many construction jobs were lost when existing contracts were stalled? If they don’t front up and clean up their act, NAMA is likely to end up yet another “jobs for the boys” and “protect the establishment (this time beind D4 accountants, lawyers and estate agents) scandal.
It was in the Sunday Independent and The Sunday Times – the companies are linked to the Paddy Kelly hotel moves. Whelan’s name and the hotel was in the Sindo, Steamboat was named in The Sunday Times. I don’t guess.
@Neil, I’ll take your word for it. There is no occurrence online for steamboat developments with a google search of site:independent.ie steamboat after 1st March 2011 and the receivership is dated 25th March 2011. The Sunday Independent usually puts news stories online. Perhaps I am being dim with searching and you have the link. As for the Sunday Times which doesn’t publish online without a subscription, I’ll take your word for it.
The new government have not yet got to grips with NAMA and these are the last kicks of the perverted and pervasive thinking of the CAB administration that currently runs the place.
The staff is made up of failed mid level and young lawyers that have little or no ability and couldn’t get a job anywhere else.
Most of the property staff and portfolio managers, with very few notable exceptions at the top, are inexperienced estate agents (some from the new homes section of the market) that were dispensed with when the bubble burst, or facility managers of one form or another with no experience in the higher levels of the property industry.
The only people who have real experience and knowledge have been excluded as they are all borrowers from NAMA.
The atmosphere in the place is reportedly akin to a cross between working for the CIA and the Gestapo. Secrecy documents have to be signed before you can work there. Security checks are carried out, no socialising is allowed, morale is extremely low ….and God forbid that you should know a property developer or builder.
However, the winds of change will start blowing soon and I will set the scene and make a few predictions:
Michael Noonan is very unhappy with the performance of NAMA and he has not yet got a proper handle on it… but he will.
He will draw expertise and advice from outside the country and outside the IMF, in the form of experienced bankers and lawyers who have been through this before. This advice will be outside of the NAMA operation, but will relate to it.
Some household name NAMA borrowers with assets in London will be given 4 to 6 months to sell them. Others will be invited in and will be given the opportunity to purchase their unsaleable assets at a percentage above NAMA’s “buy in” level if they can raise the funds.
Blackrock will be used to provide the funds that Frank announced a couple of days ago. And Frank will receive his gold watch and set of Anglo golf balls.
The civil service mentality will be supplanted by a more commercial one that is focused on disposals.
See the IMF Discussion Document on AMCs:
Click to access pdp03.pdf
As an aside, it is worth noting some of the disadvantages the the IMF document recognises in NAMA like structures, viz:
1. Management is often weaker than in private structures, reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.
2. Such agencies are often subject to political pressure.
3. Values of acquired assets erode faster when they are outside a banking structure.
4. NPLs and collateral are often long-term “parked” in an AMC, not liquidated.
5. If not actively managed, existence of public AMC could lead to a general deterioration of credit discipline in financial system.
6. Cost involved in operating an AMC may be higher than a private arrangement.
7. If dealing with private banks, determining transfer prices is difficult.
In essence the day of the mentality that has sent the economy down a boghole will soon be over and a new commercial reality that will see debt resolution, rebased pricing and a new beginning that is about to dawn.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, those who seized the opportunities (Abramovitch and others) made fortunes.
Fortunes are not made from buying at the top of the market – but they will be made from here.
Let’s hope that it doesn’t all go to the Wall Street vulture capitalists plus Blackrock and Goldman Sachs. Some needs to stay at home.
Anyone got any more of those stronger tablets? … They’re great for lifting the spirits.
@WSTT, that is a very interesting paper from 2004 you link to, the one whose authors include Steven Seelig, then IMFfer, now a NAMA board member. It is a 29-page report well worth reading and which might provide an insight into current thinking in NAMA.
Click to access pdp03.pdf
A few short extracts
1. “These [success factors for asset management companies, like NAMA] include supporting legal and regulatory environment, strong leadership, operational independence, appropriately structured incentives, and commercial orientation.”
2. “For an AMC to operate effectively it is imperative that it have clearly defined goals” and “The practice of mixing goals [social and commercial], and especially establishing conflicting objectives, is not recommended”
3. “certain types of assets, such as real estate, may be better handled by nonbank professionals”
4. “it is essential that an AMC be both independent and transparent with regard to its operations” and “Its stakeholders—the public, government, and shareholders—must be able to evaluate its performance.”
5. “It is also key to maintaining public confidence that the liquidation process is being carried out in a fair and objective fashion”
6. “Unfortunately, when AMCs have carried assets at their old book value, they typically show low recoveries leading the public to believe that the AMC has been a failure.” Brian Flanagan might be interested in examining the further detail provided on this issue.
7. “asset management operations are in the business of going out of business” and “One approach to the problem of the AMC being a self liquidating entity is to develop incentives for the board members so that they will counterbalance the motivations of the staff to prolong the life of the AMC unnecessarily”
8. “AMCs should have a strict profit-maximizing goal”
Thanks NWL (and WSTT) for bringing attention to this paper. As I read it, the paper suggests that (after banks have restructured loans, foreclosed and precipitated bankruptcies) the remainder should be transferred to an AMC at market values for several reasons which are all very reasonable.
However, this approach should not exclude the desirability of an AMC’s accounts showing the “big” picture based on par values of acquired loans. Nama, in an operational sense, is hardly working off the LTV of loans acquired and is, in practical terms, looking at their par values, repayments, interest paid and rolled up, security etc. Surely its overall performance (and that of its debtors) should also be assessed in these terms even if only by way of shadow proforma accounts instead of via limited notes about par value buried in its accounts.
HI,
This is not really new news but merely new reporting of old news. The McCormack and Steamboat assets were part of the package that Nama appointed receivers on two weeks ago. The reported 100 investors behind the Kelly portfolio was in truth our development partners who are mostly in Nama on their own individual portfolios as well as through the Paddy Kelly connection.
It is obviously very important for Nama to stretch the PR on each receivership as far a possible.
If they play this one well, they might get 5 or 6 weeks out of it which creates the illusion of action.
Once again NAMA used the storm troop tactics of the unexpected dawn attack.
Sean Quinn spent the previous (Wednesday) afternoon in the offices of Alan Dukes at a friendly meeting, telling him of the recent profitable performance of the Group and his plans to recapitalise the business and repay the outstanding loans. Dukes nodded encouragingly and said that he would come back to him.
At home that evening Sean received a phone call from Dukes asking him to meet in the Anglo offices on Thursday morning at 9.30 am.
At 7.30 am approximately 70 notices were delivered to homes and offices of relevant Quinn parties and at 9.30 am several large black SUVs and cars arrived at the Blanchardstown offices of the Quinn Group. The storm troops emerged from the vehicles, entered the building and secured the communications room. The Chief Executive, Liam McCaffrey, was escorted from the building.
Separately and coincidentally , Alan Dukes was telling Quinn that unfortunately he was unable to help.
What I find obnoxious in this is the fact that decisions were made weeks previously and such operations planned, but that NAMA and Anglo representatives smile, shake hands warmly while in full knowledge of the fact that they are knifing their “glad-handed friend” in the back.
These actions display a most duplicitous and contemptible set of moral values. IMO, it is a set that is founded on CAB principles and, I believe, one that represents the culture of the ex- customs officer at the top.
One thing is for certain – NAMA has no moral compass.
@WSTT, it looks like a pretty shabby way to treat the old hands in the Quinn group. I haven’t seen Sean Quinn reported as a NAMA-bound developer though he clearly is associated with a vast property empire and has substantial borrowings from Anglo. From what you say, the actions yesterday seem to have been executed by Anglo even if the methods used were borrowed from NAMA.
I’d guess though that the duplicitous approach was used to prevent any potential action by the sitting management at Quinn that might have disadvantaged creditors, and possibly Anglo & Liberty Mutual in their capacity as winning bidders for the Quinn Insurance business.
As far as I can see, NAMA has now moved against six of the reported Top 20 developers (Liam Carroll, Bernard McNamara, Derek Quinlan, Paddy Kelly, Paddy Shovlin plus Jerry O’Reilly/David Courtney in respect of their participation with Radora). There was a report in the Sunday Times about Sean Dunne and receivership but that seems to have been denied by Sean’s spokesman and certainly nothing has turned up on Iris Oifiguil.
There seems to be a sense of desperation at this stage at NAMA with the lack of signed agreements and Treasury seemed downright obstreperous in their press release three days ago.
Is NAMA going to foreclose on every developer?
As regards the tactics and the duplicity, I guess that’s part-and-parcel of preventing accounts being depleted and the like. There shouldn’t be anything personal in it, but if developers sense there isn’t any goodwill forthcoming from NAMA then there’s little incentive to unilaterally extend goodwill themselves.
Is this accurate? The repercussions will be far reaching?
@Eamon, on some levels, NAMA is one of the most open government agencies in the country – quarterly accounts and the like for example make NAMA more transparent than most quangos (NAMA is officially independent of government but outside Eurostat accounting, that isn’t credible). But despite being more open and transparent than most, if not all, government agencies we still don’t get very much information. If WSTT’s relaying of the “word on the street” is correct, then you are right, the repercussions will be far-reaching – most of the biggest developers in receivership and their assets sold would have major repercussions on property prices, potentially employment and business survival.
And NAMA is the national asset MANAGEMENT agency – “management” implies more than just receivership. So if WSTT is correct, it would signal a change in direction at NAMA also.
The Sunday Independent today claims to have seen a draft of the game-plan for the morning of the so-called “heave” against Sean Quinn. The logistics were apparently organised by RMI (Risk Management International, the Dublin-based colourful yet low-key security firm whose CEO is an ex-Irish army ranger). Starting from 5.30am, under the guise of a management training exercise, the receiver and the new team to be parachuted into Quinn were assembled and then bussed into Quinn offices at the right moment, which seems to have been when Sean Quinn was attending a meeting with Alan Dukes and Mike Aynsley at Anglo’s offices at 9.30am. The parachuted teams were accompanied by security guards and supported by personnel to secure computer systems and physical access to Quinn property.
The Sindo’s report is here
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/anglos-covert-op-to-oust-quinn-2866226.html
RMI’s corporate website is here
http://www.rmi.ie/contactus.htm
Details reported today include
(1) Pay as you go mobiles, which were to be purchased just hours before the “heave”, were provided to key members of the new team. That’s interesting because it indicates security issues with Ireland’s mobile phone network.
(2) No member of the new team was to talk on the day about the receivership to anyone without a team badge
(3) A FAQ type of document was handed to the team so that it could field questions from staff and others
(4) The subterfuge with inviting Sean Quinn to a meeting was to prevent him acting to obtain injunctions against the appointment of receivers. I’m not sure how this would have worked though. Once Sean was informed of the appointment, surely he might have immediately contacted his solicitors to file what should have been a pre-prepared application for an injunction. Surely the wily business magnate knew the appointment of receivers was on the cards.
(5) A RMI team was to “sweep” Quinn premises for “unauthorized devices”. I don’t know what this means, but it could conceivably mean covert surveillance devices (“bugs”, secret video cameras). You’d have to wonder what appraisal of Sean Quinn and the existing management team would have concluded such a precaution was warranted.
(6) The Sindo reports “There was also advice in the document on what to do if Mr Quinn was to show up at his old headquarters. “Should Mr Quinn lead a gathering, do not attempt to intervene to remove risk of escalation.”” It would be interesting to see the final and full document. Presumably the new team wasn’t going to let Sean and friends come back on to the premises so it is unclear how the instruction “do not attempt to intervene” sits with securing the premises with the new team.
Nowhere in the reporting is there any description of steps to be taken to soften what must have been a stinging slap in the face to Sean Quinn on the day in question. I don’t know the Quinn situation but have seen similar tactics to the above, used in other actions against key executives, owners, teams in companies. For the people at the receiving end of the action, the effects can be traumatic, so in professionally organized actions, attention is given to explaining the actions to people so as to, on a human level, soften the personal effect and on a professional level deter subsequent actions which might be harmful to the company. I wonder what consideration RMI gave to this last point.
I have to be more precise, NWL. It is of course Anglo or Anglo NAMA using NAMA tactics.
I believe that the “cute hoor” thinking comes from the old custom officer mentality of lying in the ditch waiting to catch the pig smugglers on the border. As a resident of Cavan, a border county, Sean Quinn should culturally have been more suspicious in his dealings with these charlatans.
@NWL. I have often wondered why it has never been referred to previously or picked up by the journalists. It probably shows that nobody actually looks at our new master’s website to see what their thinking is. But I agree with you entirely. It should be required reading for all those with an interest in NAMA and its policies.
Word on the street (as they say) is that NAMA is preparing for a SWAT style sweep on 29 of the top 30 developers. This Tsunami event is rumoured to be set for approximately 3 weeks hence. Receivers are to be appointed and it is said that KPMG are hastily recruiting to meet the date.
The properties are to be packaged into small PLC bites and sold off to whatever fund comes up with the money.
As the ol’ Curragh clock tower says “Time discloses all”.
@WSTT, if this were to come about, I wonder who the 1 out of 30 that survives unscathed, will be? Surely though, if there was such widespread foreclosure then that would signal a serious failing on NAMA’s part. You would expect most developers would be able to deliver a better return than the 100-odd folks at NAMA? Unless they were demanding what NAMA considered too much money or because they are just not engaging with NAMA because the loans are ringfenced and they couldn’t be bothered and have better opportunities knocking at their door. Why do you think there has been such a serious breakdown?
And what do you mean by “small PLC bites”?
Despite MOU’s being signed and Frank’s stated intention of working with borrowers? @WSTT, some clarification is need on your source for this, particularly as this is a very public forum…
@Marcin, this is indeed a public forum. WSTT’s source is the proverbial word on the street which is capable of being misinterpreted and wrong, though WSTT has a very good record in reporting the “word on the street”. WSTT may answer for themselves but I think you are unlikely to get a source & if one was suggested, the comment with the claimed source would be subject to close scrutiny and comment moderation for what I hope are obvious reasons.
@NWL. Bundles of property, probably segmented into retail, office, residential etc. that can be floated as small PLCs or sold to funds or PLCs in lot sizes that lead to the most competitive bidding. I imagine we will see some small REITs formed also. Nothing that was not obvious from the beginning really.
The developers are the only ones who have been caught naively with this move, as for the most part they actually believed the spin rather than what was blatantly obvious from the beginning to any cynical onlooker.
NAMA (or the IMF) have discarded its sheep’s clothing and will reveal itself for what it is – a data collection and self-liquidising agency for the debtors.
I believe that it decided long ago that working these assets was not something it wanted to do.
The developers, as I have said before have decided, pretty much en masse, to turn “poacher” because the custom officer’s terms are unacceptable.
NAMA is adamant that they are not going to succeed and hence for a number of expedient reasons have turned to sales – not least because they have been told to do so by Noonan and the IMF.
The customs officer will return to doing what he does best, which is to wring as much cash as he can from the drawers of the developers’ wives.
@WSTT, it sounds as if it might be time to haul NAMA before an Oireachtas Committee again. It has never been clear if NAMA’s objective was to maximise the return from its assets or maximise the net present value (the latter I had always assumed) but neither objective seems to be served by holding fire sales of foreclosed assets and alienating developers that might have been able to deliver a better return to NAMA. As you say, maybe the background experience of some of the folks at NAMA got the better of them. But the aimless delays that seem to be occurring, the volte-faces, the change in function need to have some oversight.
And speaking of disclosure I note that we have been waiting 17 days plus for the report and accounts that were delivered to Minister Noonan before 31st March 2011 which are for the full year 2010. So much for transparency under the new management.
P.S. NWL, I have always believed that from the viewpoint of a debtor, in the end it would come down to just two issues: The legal battle over the legitimacy of Personal Guarantees and the availability of funds to purchase the assets (not necessarily one’s own) when NAMA starts to sell them.
These are, and always were, the only real battlefields in what is essentially a phony war.
@NWL, It’s funny really that you should mention that NAMA’s objective was to maximise the return from its assets or maximise the net present value. I am aware of two very recent cases where that objective was discarded and the assets sold at an undervalue to the market because it was expedient.
To manage the sale of the assets in an orderly manner that would have ensured the best return for the taxpayer, by on average an extra 30%, was ignored. No plausible explanation was given to the borrowers.
IMO, possible reasons are because they do not have the experience and are understaffed and also because they have been told to take they money if it is the easy option and it is above NAMA’s “buy in” cost.
Another reason is because they think like civil servants and as long as some well paid and “top five” advisor tells them to do so, then they cannot be held accountable if the decision is the wrong one.
The problem is that most advisors do not know their “ash from their elder” (being polite) when it comes to property development or investment and receivers and specialist property lawyers can run rings around the bankers and NAMA personnel in order to achieve the desired result – which is usually a sale to their mates in the Lodge (we are referring to UK sales here).
how exactly are they going after Quinlan’s family assets?
And can this really be true?!!
Quote:
Rivals fret as Nama moves on Quinlan
The message coming from the State agency is clear: if you don’t play ball, you will lose it all, writes Neil Callanan
NAMA’S decision last week to appoint a receiver to nine houses owned by Derek Quinlan, his wife, his daughter and his daughter’s husband is just the beginning for the asset management agency.
Sources say the agency has told developers that they must sell all but one of their houses, including possibly their principle private residence, as part of the work-out of their loans with Nama.
Property sources said last week that Nama was demanding that, even when the house did not have a mortgage or was in the name of a developer’s wife, the home will have to be sold. Several sources also said that the family home the developers end up in must be worth less than €700,000, or €500,000 in some cases. The only exception will be in the case of a separation, where a wife will be allowed retain a residence.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rivals-fret-as-nama-moves-on-quinlan-2621788.html
@ASN, “how exactly are they going after Quinlan’s family assets” – NAMA has appointed a receiver to a reported nine properties owned by Derek Quinlan, his wife, daughter and daughter’s husband. Some of the properties are presently on the market and the expectation is that they will all be sold to pay down loans owed by the Quinlans to NAMA (and possibly non-NAMA banks).