Archive for July, 2012

Despite only spending a measly €355,000 on portfolio management fees for the first three months of 2012 – an expense heading which includes receiver costs for which NAMA has budgeted to spend €33m in 2012 – the Agency continues to appoint receivers with gusto. Yesterday’s edition of Iris Oifigiul reveals that the Agency has added seven more companies to its bag.

New Quarter Limited is jointly owned by NAMA Top-10 developer, Bernard McNamara and Durkan Residential Limited. Its directors are Barry Durkan and Patrick Durkan. And NAMA had Declan Taite and Patrick Brennan of RSM Farrell Grant Sparks appointed receivers of 19th July, 2012.

On 25th July, 2012 NAMA had Simon Coyle of Mazars appointed as receivers to Blackthorn Securities Public Limited Company whose directors are Derek O’Leary and Reginald Stuart Tuthill. The company has eight shareholders – Alan Woods, Christian Carroll, Culpepper Limited, John O’Donovan, Peter Walsh, Reginald Stuart Tuthill and Trentmount Limited (Derek and Belinda O’Leary company).

On 24th July, 2012 NAMA had Simon Coyle of Mazars appointed as receivers to  Sandyford Forum Developments Limited whose directors/owners are Derek O’Leary and Reginald Stuart Tuthill.

Maycombe Developments Limited is owned by Derek O’Leary and Reginald Stuart Tuthill and NAMA had Simon Coyle of Mazars appointed as receiver on 24th July, 2012

Glenville Hotel Investments Limited whose directors are William O’Connor and Randal Doherty and whose company secretary is 75-year old George Valentine Byrne had Declan Taite and/Anne O’Dwyer of RSM FGS Partnership appointed receivers on 23rd July, 2012. The company is jointly owned by Eileen Doherty and Randal Doherty.

Fairview Building Company Limited is the Dublin-based construction company owned by Martin Doran and Michael Doran, whose flagship Ellen Construction Limited was recently the subject of a NAMA receivership. Ken Fetherston owns one third of the company. Both Martin and Michael Doran have successfully declared themselves bankrupt in the UK. Declan Taite and/Anne O’Dwyer of RSM FGS Partnership appointed receivers on 23rd July, 2012

Fernland Limited is the Dublin based developer owned by brothers Michael and Martin Doran and brothers Ken Fetherston and Michael Fetherston. Bernadette Fetherston is also a director. NAMA had Declan Taite and/Anne O’Dwyer of RSM FGS Partnership appointed receivers on 23rd July, 2012.

Remember you can see a comprehensive list of Irish foreclosure action by NAMA here and in this regularly updated spreadsheet.


Read Full Post »

Image of the Week

Vincent Browne – image screengrab above via TV3 Tonight with Vincent Browne – not looking at all happy with his little chair whilst interviewing the NAMA chairman Frank Daly after the publication of the 2011 NAMA Annual Report. Or maybe, he’s just not happy with NAMA’s adoption of Hope as a policy.

Non-image of the week goes to the former Anglo chairman Sean FitzPatrick who, when transported from the Bridewell garda station to court was allowed drape his blazer over his cuffed hands. Yes, a former banker was in handcuffs this week.

Quinn saga programme highlights of the Week

“Never before have I seen such conduct on the scale demonstrated here nor with the deviousness with which this scheme has been operated” Mr Justice Peter Kelly commenting on the Quinn family scheme to place assets beyond the reach of Anglo

“I work in Joe Duffy part time — it’s important to remember that” Karen Quinn (nee Karen Woods) defending the €320,000 she reportedly received since April 2011 from a Russian company connected to the Quinns. She is reported to be working part-time at a Dublin car dealership, where at present there is an advertised vacancy for a full-time receptionist paying €21,000 per annum. Still, there’s more to job satisfaction than just money…

NAMA will now say anything quotes of the Week

“Now what I think you are glossing over is that there is another seven or eight years to go in NAMA, and in that seven years in aggregate, property prices recover by something like seven, eight, nine, 10% which is not an unreasonable proposal, remember recently the Central Bank indicated that property prices may have actually fallen below their economic level.” NAMA chairman Frank Daly, July 2012

“Some commentary has suggested property market will need to recover to 2004-2007 levels for NAMA to break even. The scale of recovery required is, in fact, a more modest 10% over the lifetime of NAMA taking into account the 5% of subordinated debt (€2bn)” NAMA chairman Frank Daly, September 2010

Irish residential property has declined 23% between September 2010 and June 2012. Irish commercial property has declined by 20% between September 2010 and June 2012. Yet NAMA now needs just 6-10% of a recovery to break even, whilst in September 2010 it needed 10%. Outstanding! And by the way, in September 2010 they were “taking into account the 5% of subordinated debt” which NAMA doesn’t need pay if it makes a loss, no such reference in July 2012. In actual fact, NAMA will need a blended increase of around 24% to existing property prices – see figures at top of this page – AND it will need cover its operating and interest costs, if it is to break even.

But NAMA is now saying that an increase as low as 6% will do the trick!

“What I’m saying is that based on our projections, our analysis, we are confident. And that’s an objective view of projections, figures, macros and not all our own.” NAMA chairman Frank Daly, July 2012.

You can’t blame an Agency for trying to build trust in the property market. After all, the Agency deals primarily in the property market and a loss of trust would be very punishing indeed. Truth be told, the CSO says mortgage-sales prices are down 50% at present. Others say they are down by 60% but if they are right, that indicates that cash transactions are down by 80%-plus if you think cash comprises 30% of the market, which doesn’t seem plausible as presumably valuers wouldn’t sign off on such high mortgage valuations knowing that cash prices were so much lower. Professor Morgan Kelly predicted falls of up to 80%. Commercial property is down by 67% according to both the JLL and SCSI/IPD indices but prime Dublin still costs twice as much as prime Belfast and the National Competitiveness Council said earlier this year that commercial property was still overvalued. The view on here about property prices over the medium term is who knows, but recoveries cannot be accurately predicted with spreadsheets or spreadsheet macros – if they could, we’d all be billionaires!

On the face of it, it looks as if Simon Carswell has made a true hames of this NAMA report. €1bn profit a year? Meaning €9bn between 2012-2020? But, in a detailed interview with the NAMA CEO, we get the following “we are probably going to be producing pre-impairment profits of well over €1 billion a year so we would believe at this stage – with a cumulative impairment taken of €2.75 billion, absent anything that has taken place in the market – we are probably reasonably provided for at this stage”

NAMA made a pre-impairment profit of €133m in Q1, 2012 and given Irish residential property has declined 6% so far this year, and Irish commercial is down 4%, it is likely that post-impairment, there won’t have been any profit. So €1bn a year?

Shock of the Week

NAMA has spent just €23,000 on legal fees and €355,000 on receivers in the first three months of 2012, according to its Q1, 2012 management accounts published this week. Given that the Agency has a budget in 2012 of €25m for legal fees and €33m for receivers, the figures look distinctly odd. Mind you, NAMA continues to keep the accounting profession in German cars and has spent a more typical €562,000 on audit and accountancy services during the quarter. Still though, a measly €23,000 on legal fees?  Does this mean there are desperate hordes of besuited and bewigged ones now relegated to stalking the streets of Dublin chasing ambulances?

Paradox of the Week

The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland issued a statement about its intentions for investigating Denis O’Brien’s control over Irish media. At present, his Communicorp vehicle owns radio stations which have about a 15% national radio listenership share. But it is his interest in Independent News and Media, publishers of the Independent, Sunday Independent, Sunday World, Belfast Telegraph, Evening Herald and others that is causing concern. Denis owns nearly 30% of INM and is perceived to have recently emerged victorious over the O’Reilly family in the struggle for control of the group. Now “control” in this sense might not be what the BAI regard as “control”, but the BAI does conclude that Denis has a “significant interest” in INM though not what it regards as “control”. The paradox? The BAI says it has a statutory obligation to consider “the desirability of allowing any person, or group of persons, to have control of, or substantial interests in, an undue amount of communications media”

So if the BAI has concluded that Denis O’Brien does have a “substantial interest” in INM then why is the BAI not under a statutory obligation to consider the desirability of allowing Denis O’Brien have “substantial interests” in an undue amount of communications media? Or maybe having 15% of radio listeners and having a “substantial interest” in the most powerful newspapers in the country doesn’t count in the BAI’s eyes as “an undue amount of communications media”. A head-scratcher. “Desirability” has become a particular issue with Denis O’Brien after the Moriarity Tribunal made so-called “adverse findings” against him, findings which he has disputed but which nonetheless stand on record. Control of media might help soften that record however…

Runner-Up goes to NAMA and its legal action with the Information Commissioner, Emily O’Reilly in her role as Commissioner for Environmental Information.

This is the legal case that NAMA doesn’t want to talk about. The heroic Gavin Sheridan at thestory.ie has been trying for more than two years to have NAMA declared to be subject to environmental information requests on account of its status as a public body. NAMA has fought Gavin tooth and nail every step of the way, and even though Ireland’s guardian of transparency, the Information Commissioner has sided with Gavin, NAMA has continued its resistance in the courts, where this week it spent a couple of days trying to convince the courts that NAMA is not in fact a public body and was accordingly not subject to environmental requests. According to Gavin, he expects a decision “in the Autumn”, which means from September onwards and he is “50/50” about the outcome. NAMA uses the misdirection of being forced to hand over commercially sensitive information, should it lose the case, but the rules already provide for bodies to exempt themselves from providing such information. If Gavin, or more correctly the Information Commissioner wins then we might be able to force NAMA to provide us with a list of all its property – not just the foreclosed stuff – and we might also see what remedial work it has done on ghost estates, or – as in the case of the Gleann Riada block in Longford that it is presently demolishing – it has done nothing and spent nothing in securing, protecting and maintaining these estates. The paradox is that NAMA keeps on telling us it is transparent and supports transparency as long as it doesn’t offend the NAMA Act. However the NAMA Act is not being used very much in these proceedings and NAMA is now scaremongering that a victory for Gavin here, would mean other bodies become subject to environmental requests. The spectacle of the State spending considerable sums in suing itself hasn’t gone unnoticed on here either.

If Gavin wins, maybe the first information request might be how much NAMA has spent on legal fees in resisting being classified as a public body…

Read Full Post »

The Romanian dictator Nicolae Causescu knew his days were numbered on 21st December 1989 when, from a balcony in one of Bucharest’s great squares, he starting giving a typical speech to crowd who suddenly started chanting “Timisoara”, the name of a town in west Romania where the Causescu regime had killed protestors days before. A week later, on live TV, the Causescus – equally repugnant husband and wife – were no more, after being summarily tufted out the door to an anonymous yard, after a trial of sorts, and shot. And in early December 2012, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan should not be surprised if he hears the chant “26th July” as he unveils his budget for 2013. The Memorandum of Understanding with the Troika obliges us to raise an extra €1.25bn in taxes in 2013, though recent statements from the Department of Finance suggest that taking into account the full year effect of tax hikes in 2012, that the true extra tax requirement is closer to €1bn

Yesterday, the NTMA managed to blow this sum in one fell swoop.

Remember the recent Fiscal Compact referendum where the central argument advanced by the pro-Compact side was that the Compact would give access to an insurance fund, the ESM, which would fund this country at sustainable rates in 2013 if the country was unable to get access to traditional bond markets at sustainable rates?

Well yesterday, we did get access to traditional bond markets and raised €5.2bn – €4.2bn of new money and we rolled over €1bn of debt that was falling due in 2013 and 2014. Not only that, but we paid rates which were marginally below those quoted on secondary markets. So we validated the notional rates that we hear quoted by Bloomberg each day and we raised €5bn which pushes the date by which we need more funding out to the end of 2013/start of 2014. So, why the dramatic criticism above?

We’re paying rates which are double those of the rates from the ESM, the “insurance fund” to which the “yes” vote in May 2012 was supposed to guarantee access. Over the lifetime of the €4.19bn of new bonds and the €1bn of rolled-over bonds, we can expect to pay an EXTRA €954m compared with our cost of funding from the ESM (see * and ** and *** below).

Now it should be said that the tax adjustment we’re obliged to make in 2013 must be repeated each year going forward and that we have further adjustments to make in 2014 and 2015 and beyond. So substituting market funding for ESM funding would not have completely obviated the need for further tax adjustments.

But yesterday, at a time when this funding is not needed, the €490,000-a-year plus 80% potential bonus CEO of the NTMA, John C Corrigan decided to issue debt at interest rates which suggest a lifetime premium of nearly €1bn over rates supposedly available from the ESM.

July 26th.

*The statement from the NTMA, with the results of the bond sale, say that €4.19bn of new funds was raised between 5-year and 8-year bonds, the former paying 5.9% and the latter 6.1% and the weighted average is 5.95%, presumably meaning there was €3bn of 2017 bonds and €1bn of 2020 bonds. Newspaper reporting states the Government “borrowed €3.9 billion at a rate of 5.9 per cent on a new five-year bond and a further €1.3 billion on an existing bond due in 2020 at 6.1 per cent”

** The interest rate on existing ESM borrowings ranges between 0.29% for five month funding, 1.73% for 3-year funding, 2.75% for 5.5-year funding and 3.6% for 10.2 year funding. The implied 5-year rate is 2.55% and the implied 8-year rate is 3.2%

*** €3.9bn for five years at 2.55% and €1bn at 3.2% for 8 years compared with €3.9bn for five years at 5.9% and €1.3bn for 8 years at 6.1%

Read Full Post »

Many observers have been puzzled by the €235m tax credit which NAMA showed for the first time yesterday in its Annual Report. Not only was such a credit omitted from the provisional 2011 accounts, but the booking of the credit at this stage presupposes that NAMA makes profits in the future – which it may, though with a deteriorating loan book and asset values declining in its primary market, that is not assured by any means – and there have been suggestions that NAMA is incorrect to book such a credit as it is not subject to corporation tax. The effect of the €235m tax credit was to bolster the marginal pre-tax profit of €11m to the €247m reported across most media – I say a “marginal” pre-tax profit because any accountant worth their salt can tweak provisions and estimates and in the context of a €30bn business, finding €11m extra of profit or a €11m reduction in losses or provisions shouldn’t be a gargantuan challenge. This blogpost examines the tax credit in more detail.

Firstly although section 214 of the NAMA Act states that NAMA is not subject to corporate or income taxes, that provision appears not to apply to NAMA group companies. This one sentence section 214 might benefit from further investigation as presumably NAMA is subject to taxes in other jurisdictions, and it is not clear why NAMA group companies would not benefit from this provision.

In the 2010 annual report, there was a tax charge of €375,000 – when rounded to the nearest €m it becomes zero and that is why it was not immediately obvious in the NAMA press release of key financial data yesterday – and, according to Note 11 of the 2010 final accounts “the tax charge arises on the profits earned by NAMAIL. A total amount of €0.34m was paid to the Revenue Commissioners in the period which relates to 12.5% of the profits arising in NAMAIL. No other tax charges arose in other NAMA Group entities and the Agency is exempt from Irish income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax.”

In 2010, there was a tax charge also in the provisional accounts of €380,000 so the charge of €375,000 in the final accounts for 2010 didn’t come as a surprise. In 2011 however, there was no provision whatsoever for tax and yet in the final accounts, there was a whopping big €235m credit.

NAMA has thus far run up a stonking big loss and when it comes to the taxation of companies, they can carry forward a loss from one year to offset against profits in a future year. So simplistically speaking, if Company A makes a loss of €1,000 in 2010 and a profit of €1,500 in 2011, then in principle Company A can offset the €1,000 loss from 2010 against the 2011 profit, and only pay corporation tax on the cumulative profit of €500. So Company A in 2010 won’t pay any tax in that year, but will Company A estimate the future benefit of the loss it has made in that year? If Company A is confident it will make future profits then it may book a “tax credit”, but you would have to ask why? If 2010 was its first year of operation, then it wouldn’t get paid a refund of tax from the Revenue Commissioners. The only reason you would publish a tax credit, it seems, is optics.

NAMA says it is confident of generating profits in future years so that the “tax credit” it has recognised in 2011 can really be used to offset any tax liability.

The view on here is the “tax credit” was recognised now purely for optical reasons, and that given the precarious condition of NAMA’s main market, Ireland, it flies in the face of the accounting concept of prudence to recognise the “tax credit” in these circumstances.

Read Full Post »

Vincent Browne: Frank, how can you say you are absolutely confident? Surely, what you mean is that you hope, and the hope would be based on, that there would be a hope that there would be a recovery in property prices.

Frank Daly: That’s not hope Vincent. That is taking the same way any other business, the same way the State, the same way anybody will look at the economy, look at the assets it has, look at its projected cash flows, and do that on a very objective basis. That’s not hope.

VB: It is based on taking a guess on what property prices will be, and most of the guesses have been wrong. Property prices have gone down and down and down, year after year, and you’re saying now “aah, sure let’s hope things will turn round and everything will be fine”

FD: I think if you take a look at recent indices for property prices, and I acknowledge that there are no perfect indices but I certainly think that the level of decline has begun to bottom out. Now what I think you are glossing over is that there is another seven or eight years to go in NAMA, and in that seven years in aggregate, property prices recover by something like seven, eight, nine, 10% which is not an unreasonable proposal, remember recently the Central Bank indicated that property prices may have actually fallen below their economic level.

VB: And they were wrong, again, yet again.

FD: And the month before last, the CSO indices showed that prices were beginning to rise in Dublin for example.

VB: And the most recent indications are that they’re beginning to fall.

FD: You’re never going to get a V-shaped recovery in that.

VB: Never mind a V-shaped recovery. Even if you get a straight-line recovery, that’s an improvement on what is happening in the property market at present. To say that you are absolutely confident that you’ll get back more than what you paid for these assets, is like, misuse of words if you don’t mind me saying, Frank. What you mean is that you hope.

FD: No it’s not misuse of words. For you to say that I’m hoping is misuse of words. What I am saying is-

VB: “you’re not hoping”?

FD: What I’m saying is that based on our projections, our analysis, we are confident. And that’s an objective view of projections, figures, macros and not all our own. Looking at others.

After the launch of the NAMA 2011 Annual Report yesterday, veteran journalist Vincent Browne interviewed the NAMA chairman Frank Daly, at the NAMA HQ in Dublin – the interview forms part of last night’s Tonight with Vincent Browne available here. The hard-working people at thebroadsheet.ie have prepared a partial transcript of the 30-minute interview which is available here. The extract from the interview reproduced above is additional to the Broadsheet extract.

We learn that NAMA can be confident in its projections for the property market because … it has macros. For the spreadsheet-literate amongst you who have had the dubious privilege of coding macros on Excel, you are now probably rolling around on the floor laughing. Macros are little more than formulaic calculations and if we could design macros to accurately predict property prices, we’d all be billionaires.

The regular audience on here won’t really have learned anything new from the interview, which is not to say that Vincent didn’t try to push certain issues. But at this stage, the NAMA chairman could probably swat away most questioning in his sleep.

But whilst we didn’t learn very much, the interview has amusement value. For those of you wondering what NAMA spent €825,000 on in 2011 when it booked this sum for “lease improvements” in its accounts, you probably get an answer from this interview – they spent it on potted plants! Poor old Vincent and Frank look as if they’re in a jungle!

They may also have spent it on teensy-weensy nursery school chairs for their developers to sit in when they come in to negotiate deals with the Agency – psychological intimidation some might say. Vincent Browne was given such a nursery chair last night.

What is insidious was NAMA’s claim that property markets just need improve by 6-10% over the next eight years for NAMA to break even. This is rubbish. NAMA is running up costs at €200m per annum and needs pay interest of €500m on its bonds. NAMA generates about €400m per annum on its loans from debtors. So NAMA needs see an increase in property values of at least €300m per annum just to cover its costs. And the view on here is NAMA needs see an increase of closer to 24% (see NWL index above) AND cover its ongoing costs, before it will break even.

Elsewhere Frank says that the rate of decline in the property market is bottoming out! Note, he is not saying that declines are bottoming out, just the rate of decline is bottoming out. And in response to accusations that NAMA is a gravy train for professionals and that the Agency is supporting Croesusian levels of income for the professional classes, the hawkish Frank says “I hope they will say that we have beaten them down on fees over the past couple of years” Feeling reassured.

The programme also contains reaction to the NAMA Annual Report from Dr Constantin Gurdgiev and Gavin Sheridan at thestory.ie who has an ongoing freedom of information case against NAMA presently being heard at the High Court.

[Images above are screengrabs from Tonight with Vincent Browne broadcast on 25th July, 2012]

Read Full Post »

The 2011 Annual Report produced by NAMA yesterday really shouldn’t have been very surprising to us. After all, we had the unaudited accounts for 2011 at the end of May 2012, and you might just have expected the odd tweaking of figures in the final report – after all, other than the impairment provision, that was our experience in 2010. But there were three major differences yesterday(illustrated in the table above which shows the audited and provisional results for 2011 and 2010) – the €467m increase in the impairment provision, the €235m tax credit and the third is the focus of this blogpost, the €200m of additional profit booked.

Now the impairment provision published in the unaudited accounts at the end of May 2012, was indeed “provisional” and NAMA made it clear that the €810m impairment provision then reported would be subject to scrutiny from the Comptroller and Auditor General – the CAG is responsible for auditing NAMA’s accounts. And we know in the previous year’s accounts for 2010 that the CAG increased the impairment provision from €1bn in the provisional accounts to €1.485bn in the final audited accounts, so we knew that for 2011 when we saw the provisional accounts in May that the impairment provision could change, and change substantially. No great surprise there.

What is regarded as suspicious on here is the €235m tax credit, which will shortly be the subject of its own separate blogpost. This blogpost focuses on the additional €200m other income which was “found” between the provisional accounts and the final accounts published yesterday, and I use the air quotes in “found” because normally when you produce the provisional accounts three months after year end – NAMA produced its Q4,2011 provisional accounts on 31st March 2012 and they were published at the end of May – you have a very good fix on income. Take a look at the previous year, 2010 and you will see how little change there was between the provisional and audited accounts.

So where did the extra €200m of income come from?

NAMA was asked earlier today, and there is as yet no response.

The Annual Report doesn’t offer any clue. The income reported just happens to be €200m more than in the provisional accounts. It is a fact that the Paddy McKillen case against NAMA – where Paddy was claiming NAMA’s sale of the €800m Maybourne loans to the Barclay brothers was unlawful – was seemingly settled in June 2012, when Paddy lost his appeal in London, and it might be that NAMA had refrained from booking any profit on this sale until the matter was settled. But having said that, NAMA apparently paid close to the book value for these loans, so it would be surprising if there was €200m of profit available there. Also, the NAMA accounts were signed off on 27th June 2012 – that is the date of the NAMA CEO and chairman’s signature on the accounts – and we only learned of Paddy’s defeat in Britain’s appeal court on the morning of 27th June, 2012. So if the late recognition of profits on the sale of the Maybourne loans has contributed to the enhanced profit at NAMA, then the Agency was cutting it very fine indeed!

If it weren’t for the fact that the NAMA accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General which hopefully hasn’t been the victim of “regulatory capture” by having 10 staff permanently on site at the NAMA HQ, then there might be suggestions of shenanigans at NAMA motivated by a desire to show positive results at the Agency. Or more precisely, some massaging of provisions including provisional profit on some sales which has not yet been recognised by NAMA.

Still, with an accountant’s cap on, and in light of the relatively minor changes in the previous year’s reporting of provisional and final audited results, it looks odd.

UPDATE: 26th July, 2012. Thanks to commenter Ahura M below who points out that NAMA has provided a reconciliation between its provisional impairment reported at the end of May 2012 and the audited impairment, and this shows that NAMA, when it was preparing its provisional accounts, deducted a gain on the disposal of loans/property of E243m, and that NAMA has now reclassified this. So, one mystery solved!

Read Full Post »

His legacy in Ireland might be buried beneath receiverships and personal judgments, but it seems that the former Baron of Ballsbridge, Sean Dunne and his wife, Gayle, are still in the game. The US property website Zillow is reporting that a property associated with the Dunnes has sold for USD 5.5m (€4.5m). It should be made clear that Sean has previously denied involvement with the property at 38 Bush Avenue, Belle Haven, Greenwich, Connecticut CT 06830 but it does seem that the property was owned by a trust associated with the Dunnes. Here is a video of the Dunnes being door-stepped at the property under construction in 2011 – they’re clearly not happy with being filmed by a local journalist.

The property was bought for USD 2m in 2010, according to Zillow and underwent extensive remodelling – the neighbours claimed the Dunnes’ “remodelling” was so substantial that they were really demolishing the existing house and building a totally new home. Neighbourly planning disputes ensued but eventually, the demolition and re-build proceeded.

The property had been offered for sale by Sothebys for USD 6.4m, so the USD 5.5m price might represent a slight disappointment, but set against a USD 2m purchase price and even accounting for a new build, the owners – the trust and the beneficiaries of the trust – should be walking away with a profit.

Last year, the Irish Independent reported the Dunnes, or rather a trust operated by a lawyer who is also connected to 38 Bush Avenue, had purchased another property in Connecticut – 42 Bote Road, Stanwich, Connecticut, CT 06830, and indeed, there was speculation the Dunnes had been associated with the purchase of a third property

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »