Legislation gives NAMA wide powers





Now get to work pinsters!

I wonder what the percentage of comments will be lazy arse moaners who won’t even read the memo… :angry:

Well NC,

I’ve taken a quick trip through - so I’ve missed somethings. It’s weak on detail. Seems to me that NAMA can issue debt secuities for whatever it likes. I was looking for details on coupons on Nama bonds and if the coupns could be paid with more bonds. Couldn’t find anything ruling it out. Also it wasn’t definitive on which banks could take part.

Please count me in as one of those lazy arse moaners. As a taxpayer I don’t want this useless /worthless shite. For now, that’s my detailed economic reasoning.

It really does give the Minister a lot of power.

He appoints everyone, can sack anyone, says how much everyone gets paid,
appoints the valuation panel, etc etc, as expected.

This bit seems to push it a bit (although none of this is my forte)

NAMA can enforce the “Compulsory acquisition of land”.
Although it says
“NAMA shall exercise its powers under this Chapter only for the performance of its
functions as specified in section 11.”
In Section 11 we have this
“The Minister may confer on NAMA, by order, such additional functions connected with
the functions for the time being of NAMA as he or she thinks fit, subject to such conditions
(if any) as may be specified in the order.”

Mmmmm! Power.

Could this be what ACC avoided?

I haven’t read the docs yet, so don’t know what context that line is in, but I’m pretty sure any such article would be unconstitutional unless the action was by way of a CPO (and as such would need to be shown to be in the interest of the common good). With that in mind, my initial reaction is that it would be used to provide infrastructure/access to land or developments in order to facilitate their development/completion/zoning and resultant increase in value.

If not, then this place just took a rather interesting and disturbing step towards being the Western European equivalent of Zimbabwe or Venezuela!

Blue Horseshoe

Question about the loan buying: is the bank kept as a middleman? Does the developer repay the bank, who then repays NAMA? Or are the top 50 developers now going to deal directly with staff in NAMA?

Oh my. That’s astonishing. That makes the developers untouchables. It further effectively removes any other liens on the assets. It doesn’t just make the banks first lien holders, it makes them sole lien holders. Anyone not paid by NAMA for the loan has just been dispossessed. No? Or just potentially? It seems quite draconican to me anyway, but I haven’t got to section 157 yet!

is the bank asset not just the bank’s loan?

The Loans that NAMA buy are not registered to NAMA they remain registered to the bank,
it overrides The registration of title act 1964, this leaves it open to challanges.

This only serves to obscure what is done, Who does it and how much is paid for the asset, the lack of transparency is very worrying.

A lis pendens or caution is a way in which a person challenging ownership of land can warn potential third party buyers that there is an action in being. Supposing you are disputing my entitlement to land in my name and you are suing me. If I sell the land on at full market value to some third party you can’t recover the land you can only sue me for damages. But if you register a lis pendens it puts any potential purchasor on notice of the claim and thus your proprietary right travels with anyone foolish enough to buy the property. This section doesn’t stop mortgage holders from asserting their legal or equitable rights in the normal way. I believe it is intended to stop legal challenges preventing NAMA from selling on the property in the meantime (but sure who would they sell them on to?).

However, the section could be a violation of constitutional property rights and, more importantly, the right of access to the courts and the right to gain an effective remedy.

This little lot will be working alongside Her majesty’s treasurys asset protection scheme. A type of repo man double taxation agreement will be put in place, as there’s no shortage of crossover.

This looking less and less like the Irish financial version of the Patriot act and more like Bevis trying to play god. Is NAMA a ruse for something else, forcing the public onto the streets to enact harsher civil restrictions legislation.

Money is the only motivation they know. It is no more complicated than that.

+1 Nothing beats pure greed now does it? 8-


Sinn Fein may make decent political capital out of this, I’d say this might force another look by the main parties

{ NB : I’d be ferociously, strike that actually rabidly anti-SF }



Why are people so afraid to endorse Sinn Fein or even acknowledge that politically they are comparatively principled.
FF, FG and the Greens (Leinster House Division) just make me feel dirty.

I know who I would trust to organise an effective counter NAMA campaign.

Yup. If you want to organise a campaign then the Sinners are the ones to do it. Belfast or the UK mainland?

In all seriousness, it is sad that the only real political hope is a party that most people in the country trust even less that the mainstream ones.

May have something to do with their refusal to comdem violence and murder in the past, not to mention their comical economic theories which are different North and South. With me its the Nationalism, I am not generally a big fan.