LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThank you for that.
€15,000 million error minimum.
There is more to come with AngloCentralBankRegulatorGolfGate
Mr Drumm hasn`t gone away you know
Thank you for that.
€15,000 million error minimum.
There is more to come with AngloCentralBankRegulatorGolfGate
Mr Drumm hasn`t gone away you know
.Originally Posted by hammer
What was not disclosed in this Property Week article (below) was the interest rate payable by McKillen on the £660m of borrowings.
However NAMA CEO Brendan McDonagh has previously stated (“those loans would typically be priced at a six month EURIBOR rate plus a margin, typically 2% approximately”) that NAMA developers were typically paying interest at ECB + 2% (that is 3% at today’s rates).
If the interest rate charged to McKillen on the best part of a €1bn facility is 3% and on the other hand Ireland must pay 5.8-6% to the IMF/EU for the funds to bailout Anglo in particular and potentially Bank of Ireland, which is flouncing around at the moment ahead of its deadline in 40 days to raise €1.5bn (not to mention pay the NPRF €214m interest on its preference shares “investment”), then the Irish taxpayers subsidises this developer to the tune of €22m per year (5.8% – 3% €784m).
And what about McKillen's Supreme Court appeal?
The SC decision was EXPECTED in January???????????
McKillen now seems to be dependent on the grace of an organisation which he is litigating against.
This is beginning to stink A LOT.
Property Week -
“Maybourne Hotel Group, which owns luxury London hotels Claridge’s, the Berkeley and the Connaught, has been given a crucial two-year debt extension by Ireland’s NAMA (National Asset Management Agency)
The company, whose shareholders include Irish property entrepreneurs Paddy McKillen and Derek Quinlan, has been given an extra two years to pay back £660m of debt that matured in December last year, and which is secured against the hotels.
NAMA has taken control of the Maybourne loans as part of the process of buying €81bn of property debt from Ireland’s banks.
It has granted the extension to ensure the group does not have to sell any of the high-quality assets or a stake in the business at a discount.
The income from the hotels is covering interest payments.
Maybourne has been attempting to refinance the debt. For the last year Deutsche Bank has been trying to assemble a consortium of lenders to replace the present syndicate, which includes Anglo Irish and Bank of Ireland.
Qatar Holding, the Sultan of Brunei, US casino mogul Steve Wynn and Northwood Investors, the company set up by former Blackstone partner John Kukral, who originally sold the hotels to Maybourne, have been circling the company in a bid to buy a stake in the business.”
Claridge
The following hypothesis makes more than a little sense:
Paddy McKillen was reported by the Sunday Times Rich List 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?
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 kicker 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 High Court 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) Supreme Court will have little choice but to uphold the High Court - they can't really interfere with its factual findings and thus uphold the constitutionality of it;
5) 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 preferable, from the government's point of view, to an Article 26 reference which would involve 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 smacks 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.
.
Who would be involved with this enquirey?That shower of muppets in the Dail?backed up by Nigel o"civil servant?I understand your anger and frustration but nothing would come of it.
ALL OUR POLITICIANS ARE LANDLORDS OR MONEYLENDERS ??????????????
ALL OUR LANDLORDS AND MONEYLENDERS ARE HAPPY TO CONTROL GOVERNMENT DECISIONS
what have we between our ears , why do we allow blind guides to guide us,,, we need to stop trying to understand, what is going on, start thinking with our brains not our wallets . the landlords and moneylenders are no different than bedbugs,
We must stop the landlords and moneylenders from controlling government,
I think you did that a long time ago.
Reply With Quote