Developer McKillen takes first legal challenge against Nama



Seems our banks are entirely untrustworthy. AIB shares down 7c this morning. If you were a serious investor how would you assimilate this story into your investment portfolio policy


I thought a lender could sell their loan book on to whomever they liked at any time. Would a judge want to do anything to prevent this.


There is nothing that can be done.
The bank is the owner of the loan, hence they can sell it to whoever they want.


So if Mr McKillens loans are fully performing does that mean that NAMA paid 100% of their value to the relevant bank(s)?


Are Nama taking this performing loan to bolster their recovery statistics?


yes. thats the entire point of they taking performing loans - to whitewash the disasterous results elsewhere


NAMA seeking to fast-track first legal challenge over loan transfer -> … 59122.html


I see no way this guy can win his case, but if he did, oh boy.


I think it needs to be in the loan documentation.

#11 … 65962.html


Will they pay him damages for not letting him sell the property in London for 18.9M in May?


Under what circumstance could a bank refuse permission to sell an asset? Presumably the bank would have had its charge registered on the deed and would need to release its charge before a sale could take place?


it was mentioned in court that when he went to BOI in May to sell a property he was told NAMA would have to approve the sale notwithstanding that the loan had not been transferred to them.


If true, that shows NAMA acting outside the powers of the NAMA Act*, and McKillen’s challenge should be towards that ultra vires behaviour, rather than towards the Act itself, and possibly towards his own bank for breach of the loan agreement.

  • I don’t believe the NAMA Act gives the Agency powers to give directions on how unacquired loans should be managed by the bank that still owns them.


Grumpy, I saw that reported as well. I wonder if Paddy has a case against the banks for abusing State-aid in respect of their vetoing the €18.9m sale? If banks were simply acting in their own commercial interests then what difference does an early redemption make as long as they’re paid in full including any penalty for early repayment. I find that puzzling.

Mind you, and I am no fan of Sean Fitzpatrick, but I don’t understand why Sean didn’t seek a judicial review of Anglo’s decision to bankrupt him. Most commentators seem to agree Anglo would have received more money back with a deal outside bankruptcy. And there are what? 19 bankruptcies per annum in the State? Did Anglo act for political reasons (and thereby abuse State-aid by not acting commercially) by insisting on a bankruptcy? If Sean gets fed up with being labelled a bankrupt he may decide to have a legal looksie to see if Anglo behaved lawfully towards him.

I think the banks have got to start being more careful.


The quiet developer who could bring Nama to its knees -> … 71713.html


Businessman barred from meeting Nama -> … 71863.html


I don’t believe it either, nor do I think that NAMA would say so. This sounds to me like a bank gaming the system. What’s the difference in the price of performing assets vs. non-performing? Could it be that Mr. McKillen’s loans attract a price greater than the amount outstanding = loan + interest? Could it be more valuable to the bank to sell them to NAMA then let them be redeemed?


It seems that Paddy has sold the property on Bond Street and for €18.2m. Seems to have overcome the Bank of Ireland objection. … 88184.html

Paddy has joined 15 companies in his application for judicial review and Metrospa Limited was one.

By the time the October hearing comes around, what’s the betting that Paddy doesn’t have any more loans with NAMA banks?