And does this mean, for example, that banks repacking mortgages into loans to be sold on are in trouble also?
I haven’t seen the judgement but I wouldn’t exactly be confident of cui bono’s assessment.
Not really. When the securitsation started, the banks got existing customers’ permission to allow them to do this. After that, it was in the mortgage facility letters.
I wonder what the legal tatus of NAMA’s actions (receivership/liquidation/judgement) is if the decision to acquire the loans was taken pre 21/12/09
McENANEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
PADDY BURKE (BUILDERS) LIMITED
MELLVIEW CONTRACTORS LIMITED
ARCADIA DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
LYNDONBARRY ESTATES LIMITED
MELLVIEW PROPERTIES LIMITED
Michael McNamara and Company
Radora Developments Limited
John J Fleming Construction
Pierse Building Services
Whelan Group (Ennis) Limited
Whelans Limestone Quarries (Contracts) Limited
Whelans Limestone Quarries Limited
Whelans Quarries (Carraigtwohill) Limited
Shannon Explosives Limited
Paddy Shovlin/Anthony Fitzpatrick/Patrick Fitzpatrick
Not sure about that. The ruling, while you could consider it a technical point, invalidates NAMA’s actions in relation to McKillen. SUre they can try again and if he loses a challenge to that, tough. This time around, he’s won.
That is the point. If anything the ruling has affirmed that once the NAMA legislation was enacted and the agency created, all of their actions are bulletproof.
Not yet. The other issues raised are scheduled for further hearings.
Well then, it’s a not yet isn’t it then?
What happened to judgements being issued in full!
What’s the difference between NAMA managing your loans and a Nationalised Bank??? Is that a Christmas Cracker joke in the making???
Enough of a difference to see a challenge to the Supreme Court.
OK, the banks are bankers and want to recover as much as possible. NAMA are a bunch of civil servants and half the “professionals” in Dublin feeding on a carcass bought cheap. They only have to recover the discounted value to look ok. So, the nice assets are sold first (like McKillens) while everyone whirrs along feeding from the carcass which seems to be doing what it is supposed to.
Compare and contrast. Noone in the non-NAMA banks are paying 000ks to review “business plans” - largely park for three years and hope you’re back in Kansas. Very different recovery vehicles and I know which I think is better.
Personally, I think it depends on who you think your friends are…
I’d dispute your definition of “bought cheap”, as the taxpayer in this instance has paid twice for the carcass in question.
Customers in arrears are not finding banks very friendly.
In relation to the bought cheap, I was merely looking at it from NAMA’s perspective.
Going back to your point about the difference between NAMA and a nationalised bank:
look at this FUCKING nonsense
Of course there is no profit, merely an increased contribution to the state to Anglo on the other side. PROFIT I mean for fucks sake.
No what benefit has this particular transaction given the state: Fuck all. NADA.
The NAMA absorbtion process is inself a divinely onlycouldbeproducedbygovernment fucking nonsense.
Banks value property using valuers.
NAMA appoints valuer to review valuation.
Third valuer gets snout in trough for a review of the outcome of the review.
Accountancy firms pork up on reviewing business plans.
Engage valuers AGAIN to defer to their expertise.
Et fucking cetera.
AND WE’RE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FUCKING TRANSACTION.
NAMA getting tough, NAMA making profits, NAMA evidence before PAC. Bring in big Frank Daly from teh fucking Revenue Commissioners to run the fucking thing, salaries, fees, costs all over the fucking place. And after all of this, as the transaction above demonstrates, it’s all fucking shit becuase the process failed utterly.
Yeah but we know all that.
Screw the Revenue Commissioners, all the loans should have been sold to Latvians’r’us and the Hopping Mad collection agency.
Knowing it doesnt make me any more comfortable when we are paying more tax and this is being frittered away on unnecessary fees. Funny how the non-NAMA banks are able to get professional services on cheaper terms than NAMA is.
Funny? It’s downright hilarious…
Or…is it Noooooooooooooooo!?
I haven’t a clue any more.
O mother o god…
This is going to be a mess beyond compare.
I thought the idea was that NAMA would aquire so called good loans aswell as bad loans and that the interest and so on coming in from the good loans would help offset some of the costs associated with the bad loans. We were even told at one stage that we could make a profit…long term…economic value…
Has NAMA done a U-turn???
It’s all just such a mess, isn’t it !