Well, the surprise is, it took them so long!
This evening, communication has been received from Hayes Solicitors, acting on behalf of NAMA, threatening that unless a commitment is given not to publish the table referred to in this blogpost, then NAMA will seek “injunctive relief” to prevent such publication. The table referred to in the blogpost on John Fraher’s affidavit purports to show 103 loans with the name of the borrower which in some cases is an individual or group of individuals and in others is a company or business. Each of 103 loans shows “Full due diligence nominal value local currency” and “final acquisition value, euro” or in layman’s terms what appears to be the par value of the loan and the NAMA valuation. Remember NAMA has acquired €74bn of loans at par value and paid 43c in the euro on average, or €32bn in total.
The reason the table is troublesome is that, according to John Fraher, it shows co-borrowers of his, but also loans unconnected at all with John Fraher. NAMA has also said that it does not disclose the acquisition value of loans, disclosure of which might give a potential buyer an advantage because it would give them an indication of what NAMA might expect to achieve if it sold the loans.
In his affidavit John Fraher claims that this loan information was provided to John’s financial advisers by a NAMA employee named Padraig Reidy. NAMA was asked for comment on the affidavit and the tables more than two hours before publication of the blogpost, which withheld publishing the table pending consideration on here of privacy issues. NAMA’s solicitors this evening “request the immediate provision of an undertaking to desist (sic) from publishing such data to be confirmed to us by no later than 9.30am” tomorrow.
NAMA’s solicitors also claim this evening that the statement in the blogpost
NAMA “has provided reams of confidential information to third parties” according to an affidavit of John Fraher’(sic)”
is not correct
“for the record”.
Well, let’s see about that. John Fraher states the following in his affidavit
Paragraph 8 “I beg to refer to a listing of the members of Connection 872 together with the nominal value of Connection 872’s facilities and the acquisition price paid by NAMA/the Plaintiff to the Participating Institution, which was given to my financial advisers by Mr Reidy which is at Tab 2 of the Booklet. Since the proceedings herein were instituted, Mr Reidy has contacted my financial advisers asking that they destroy the document”
Mr Reidy is referred to in an email from John Fraher in the same file as the troublesome data as NAMA Portfolio Manager Mr Padraig Reidy.
Paragraph 9 “As is apparent from the listing, Connection 872 includes individuals and entities with which I have no connection whatsoever and with whom I have no joint or several liability to NAMA”
This is where the “third parties” arises. John Fraher is a third party to some of the borrowers, and so are John Fraher’s financial advisers.
The attached table purports to show borrowers, par values of loans and NAMA acquisition values of loans. Hands up anyone who thinks this is “confidential”? And if it’s not “confidential”, then what would NAMA’s grounds be for seeking an injunction.
“Ream” is defined as “a very large amount” and seems apt for 103 loans with names of borrowers and apparent par and NAMA acquisition value
So, taken together, it seems that “the record” shows John Fraher’s affidavit does justify the blogpost title
“NAMA provided reams of confidential financial information to third parties – affidavit”
For the record.
As for the attached tables of borrowers, par values of loans and NAMA value of loans which John Fraher claims were provided to his financial advisers by a NAMA employee, NAMA hasn’t denied the accuracy of the information nor has it denied the information was provided to John Fraher in the manner claimed. And in preparation of the blogpost yesterday, comment was sought in the usual way beforehand, and with more than three years of experience of NAMA’s PR company, communication, even if at 7.30pm on a Monday evening, is responded to promptly if there is comment. NAMA hadn’t commented two hours later, and in fact, NAMA has still not commented on the affidavit.
As for the content of the tables, the opinion on here is they do contain confidential information that should not have been disclosed by NAMA and which the borrowers would expect to be kept confidential Accordingly, this blog is happy to give to NAMA an “unequivocal undertaking to desist (sic) from publishing such data”
In fact, the NAMAwinelake blog will go further and hereby gives an unequivocal undertaking that it will not disseminate the data in any way whatsoever.
With one single exception.
The affidavit and tables will be provided to Mr Billy Hawkes, the Data Protection Commissioner together with a complaint that NAMA has, not for the first time, apparently failed in its duty to protect the privacy and confidentiality of data – namely details of borrowers and loans – and in so doing is in breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 (as amended).
Some nights, you’d wish the wine lake wasn’t just a concept!