Developer McKillen takes first legal challenge against Nama


Anyone know what happened today?

Was listed in SC Friday list, which is probably a motion for a stay or some other case management application.


Both sides agreed to seek an adjournment to next Thursday 18/11 - that was for both Paddy’s application for a stay on the transfer of his loans pending the outcome of his appeal (which if it eventually goes to Europe could take years) and for case managing the appeal - I would surprised now at an appeal this side of Christmas but I think NAMA needs to move with all speed to transfer the loans and get to understand the detail of Paddy’s loans (and other exposures).

#83 … 54235.html


AG urges Supreme Court to uphold McKillen case ruling - MARY CAROLAN -> … 36994.html


McKillen ‘has no evidence he can repay’ - Mary Carolan -> … 93069.html


While in a different jurisdiction the GGP bankruptcy case in the US could be looked at as an example of how borrowers whose loans are current can be declared bankrupt due to being in Financial Distress. The ruling was that these entities had no potential of refinancing their debt over the next 3 years due to the signficant decline in value of assets and the effective closure of the CMBS market at the time. Under this definition it would be difficult for a developer to argue against their companies being transfered to NAMA. The bottom line is that they’d rather deal with their existing banking relationship managers as while they are paying interest (i.e. keeping their non amortising loans current), the loans don’t appear on any watchlists and they aren’t required to come up with realistic business plans to repay the principal.


Can anyone help with NAMA’s rationale for refraining from transferring Paddy’s loans pending the outcome of the appeal (Supreme Court due to conclude hearing today with a decision in January 2011, though an appeal to Europe could take years). I guess that NAMA would be on the hook for losses on a €2bn-odd portfolio if NAMA’s actions caused those losses having taken them over unlawfully. But is there any other reason?

Paddy McKillen was reported by the Sunday Times Rich List (link below) to be worth €75m-odd in 2009 which is significant but hardly puts him anywhere near super-rich. And remember his main business is leveraged property and both leveraging and property have suffered since 2009 (okay, prices are up 15% in the UK but much of Paddy’s assets are in Ireland where prices are down that much). Once NAMA absorbs the loans it will get

(1) A full disclosure of assets
(2) A comprehensive overview of Paddy’s finances

Why is NAMA not pressing ahead? … 146449.ece


Because it is all a lie. McKillen’s “Challenge” is not a challenge at all. It is an opportunity for NAMA to get a ruling from the Supreme Court early on that its powers are lawful. Think about the running of the case. It was initiated as a challenge to the powers of nama to interfere with property rights, and on the first day of the hearing his lawyers accepted that they were not challenging NAMA at all, but just challenging the manner in which his loans were picked to be transferred in i.e. they are seeking to litigate almost on a matter of evidence - which is not appropriate for judicial review. The real kicked was that he also argued that if his objections (narrow as they were) are not well founded, then NAMA must be unconstitutional. This is a very weak constitutional argument, and the court had no problem knocking it away. Likewise, his argument on state aid was not that the whole thing breached state aid and was an interference with the market, but rather on a very narrow ground concerning the meaning of “impaired loans”

Thus what we have is as follows:

  1. big, dramatic public announcement of a challenge to NAMA;
  2. lots of press coverage over the ins and outs of the actual nama system (while it is quietly conceded that they are not challenging NAMA);
  3. the HC thus has an opportunity to determine this “challenge to NAMA” but to do so on very limited and technical grounds;
  4. the media (Carol Coulter in particular) then say that we have a very learned and fulsome decision on NAMA;
  5. SC will have little choice but to uphold the HC - they can’t really interfere with its factual findings and thus uphold the constitutionality of it;
  6. any further challenge will be met with “well the Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality” and such a challenge will not be given priority. Thus, it will take another 3-4 years before the Supreme Court can deal with any other challenge.

This is prefereable, from the government’s point of view, to an Article 26 reference which would invovle arguing all the constitutional arguments.

Forgive my cynicism, but I would not a bit surprised if McKillen is getting his legal fees and probably a few extra sweeteners paid by the state for bringing a challenge that is dog food dressed as fillet steak. The whole thing smaks of a sham, and I wouldn’t be surprised if even his own legal team is being duped by his motives for bringing the challenge.


I love it!!! Genius!!!
Sadly I’ll need some evidence before I’ll believe it …

#90 … 25212.html


Isn’t it gas …

The Irish State is borrowing funds at 5.7-6.1% and much of the funds are going into the banks.

The banks are lending nearly €800m to Maybourne.

Maybourne is reportedly paying 3-4% interest.

Maybourne is now 60% owned by two billionaire brothers that elsewhere own the Telegraph newspaper and Ritz hotel in London.

So the State is borrowing at perhaps twice the interest rate that our banks are receiving from two British billionaires.



Is this not the same story with every new mortgage issued ?
Any mortgage rate below 5.7% is, in effect, subsidised by the taxpayer.

The banks would never issue new mortgages at 4.5% with the intention of raising that rate above 6% … would they ? :angry:


Decision tomorrow apparently:


TV3 says he won.


on pat kenny now

supreme have found in favour of mckillen on some points




It’s a technical point win…

If that’s all it amounts to, I’d doubt it’s even satisfying for McKillen… Who got costs? :angry:


Its a huge win for the private citizen against the state.

The Natural Law right to bodily integrity and private property has been upheld.

Costs will follow the event.


Wheres my Natural Law right to not have to pay for someone elses mistakes ?