Developer McKillen takes first legal challenge against Nama

#21 … 48_pf.html


The only developer that I know of that is trying to avoid NAMA and they come down on him like a ton of bricks.
Strange that.


His point is that he is not a developer.


Not any more he isn’t, He’s been upgraded by the spinners to ‘tycoon’ status.

Tycoon behind bid to stop NAMA transfer owes €2bn -> … 33783.html


First NAMA case may need global experts to appear - Dearbhail McDonald -> … 45621.html


Can anyone explain why this is the case?


The foreign banks and finance houses would put him in their NAMA pile and never give him another penny.

TBH, I think he has a point. I`m not saying he is a good guy ( no idea either way ) just that if he is payin all his bills, which appears to be the case, leave him alone.


Yeah. NAMA looks like it will be short of capital (the usual plague of bad banks). Which is a reason not to go into it if you think you have a business with a future. Many are deluded that they have businesses with futures. I make no comment on whether Mr. McKillen is one of them. As is usual, what’s revealed in the Commercial Court will be, eh, revealing!


As well as what TNC pointed out, NAMA needs good assets to dispose of.

Many good developers are starting to get a bit tetchy about being put in to NAMA as they roll out the phases. Fine Gael starting to ask why the good stuff in going in too.


Fine Gael Senator Eugene Regan again appears to be leading the FG opposition to the way in which NAMA is being implemented. His latest letter and response from the Commission are on his website (link below). I think he is barking up the wrong tree. The NAMA Act sets out what is an eligible asset and is referred to by the Commission. Also the NAMA (eligibility of bank assets) Regulation was passed into law in Dec 2009. So it is quite clear what the EU were approving and that’s every land and development loan and associated loan. Paddy McK reputedly has (or had in the original schedule from the banks) a €5-10m development loan and it seems that this is why €2bn of loans will be pulled into NAMA, though the Minister for Finance has extensive discretionary powers when it comes to any borrower at any of the five NAMA financial institutions.

Personally I have no view one way or the other in principle about NAMA taking over unimpaired loans but if NAMA is to abandon performing unimpaired loans (down from 40% last Oct to 33% in April to 25% in the most recent business plan) then NAMA needs a new business plan and NAMA needs to charge banks more for taking over the loans because enforcement of a 100% impaired portfolio will be far more costly than was envisaged when the EU approved NAMA’s enforcement cost contribution from the banks of 5% (in fact the EU said it would normally be 15% for impaired loans but reduced it because NAMA was only supposed to have a small proportion of defaulting loans).

As to Paddy’s motives, difficult to say. As a bystander it seems strange that Maybourne hasn’t yet been refinanced (they were “inundated” with offers at the start of August). I hope the Commercial Court allows the case to be fully aired - it’s been alloted 2 weeks


According to the 6.01 news Mr Mckillen has won the first round of his case


Paddy won a procedural point today in advance of the substantive hearing which will take place from 5th October, 2010.

The point he won was the right to amend his application to include a reference to the EC’s letter to Senator Eugene Regan last week and to argue at the substantive hearing that the EC never intended unimpaired borrowers to be included in NAMA.

Frankly it is good all round that Paddy won the point today as otherwise there could be another application just to deal with that one point.

As long as the judges allow the judicial review to proceed this is promising to be one humdinger on a case.


Bono Partner McKillen’s Suit May Hold Key for Anglo Irish Loans -> … loans.html

#34 … 73807.html … 72938.html … 72971.html … 72956.html … 66357.html … 66423.html


Neat summary here with links to other material … en-v-nama/


Help needed here - what is this court case really all about?
Why does it matter who owns the loans?
Surely McKillen will pay the same interest rate to NAMA as he was paying to the bank, so what’s the problem?
Scratching my head here.


He has a whole section dedicated to this: … en-v-nama/


we really need to post photos of this guy.


I think the point is that if NAMA can’t have these performing loans, they have no funding to cover their costs and in this situation, they will not be able to sit on the impaired loans that they have but would need to fire sale them to fund their operations hence NAMA key business plan of sitting on these valueless loans hoping they rise something in the future is out the window. We would quickly have a market price for everything.

The downside is the Banks would have to take a further loss on the bad loans and the taxpayer would foot the bill.

But I think this case will define how Ireland will look in the future. It is a huge case.


I haven’t read the whole thread but the fact that Nama has deemed McKillen in default because of the Anglo 10 loans is in my opinion highly significant because of the knock on implications with the other big players.