Dellway Investments Ltd & others v NAMA & others
Introduction
The appellants: DELLWAY INVESTMENTS LIMITED and Others
The respondent: NATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AGENCY and Others
NAMA was set up to take over all the ‘bad loans’ from the banks when the financial crisis happened. The Government then put money into the banks to help them and to fix the balance sheets. McKillen took NAMA to court because NAMA took over all of the McKillen loans from the banks. McKillen said however that his loans were healthy, that they were not bad loans and that NAMA was acting illegally. He wanted to deal with the Bank he borrowed from and not NAMA which was set up by the Government.
The arguments made by the Dellway Investments
The main arguments that Paddy …show more content…
Give reasons for your answer
In my opinion, the decision regarding European Law Question was incorrect. This law allows the NAMA’s discretion of action in many situations, and this discretion, in my opinion, is a little bigger than necessary, and it can bring some damage to any individuals like McKillen. If his loans are performing, there is no economic reason for NAMA to acquire them. This is really important to analyse a little the situation before taking so type of decisions, as a transfer to NAMA can have a bad impact on Mr McKillen’s reputation.
So type of action like NAMA’s is a real lawlessness. The definition of eligible bank asset is really broad and NAMA should not make abuse of its discretion of action without analysing the matter a little deeper. Additional to that, as I understood, properties were valued lower than their market value, and this, all the more, emphasizes the image of …show more content…
Former Anglo Irish Bank chairman Sean Fitzpatrick and former executives William McAteer and Pat Whelan had pleaded not guilty to 16 charges each of providing illegally financial assistance to individuals for the purpose of buying shares in Anglo Irish Bank back in 2008.
Each charge is linked to a particular individual who allegedly received financial aid between 10 and 17 July 2008 there had been 16 people included in the charges many of them members of Quinn’s family.
After two months of hearings of complex and technical evidence from 54 witnesses, the jury needs to come with a decision. Before they come with a verdict they have been told by Judge Martin Nolan they could not serve if they worked or had previously worked in any bank including Anglo. (Cormaic, 2014)
After long hours of deliberation the verdict was pronounced: They have found that Mr Fitzpatrick was not guilty on all charges.
The other two former executives Patrick Whelan and William McAteer were found guilty of giving unlawful loans to “Maple 10”, but not guilty of giving illegal loans to any Quinn’s family members (The Journal.ie,
Introduction
The appellants: DELLWAY INVESTMENTS LIMITED and Others
The respondent: NATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT AGENCY and Others
NAMA was set up to take over all the ‘bad loans’ from the banks when the financial crisis happened. The Government then put money into the banks to help them and to fix the balance sheets. McKillen took NAMA to court because NAMA took over all of the McKillen loans from the banks. McKillen said however that his loans were healthy, that they were not bad loans and that NAMA was acting illegally. He wanted to deal with the Bank he borrowed from and not NAMA which was set up by the Government.
The arguments made by the Dellway Investments
The main arguments that Paddy …show more content…
Give reasons for your answer
In my opinion, the decision regarding European Law Question was incorrect. This law allows the NAMA’s discretion of action in many situations, and this discretion, in my opinion, is a little bigger than necessary, and it can bring some damage to any individuals like McKillen. If his loans are performing, there is no economic reason for NAMA to acquire them. This is really important to analyse a little the situation before taking so type of decisions, as a transfer to NAMA can have a bad impact on Mr McKillen’s reputation.
So type of action like NAMA’s is a real lawlessness. The definition of eligible bank asset is really broad and NAMA should not make abuse of its discretion of action without analysing the matter a little deeper. Additional to that, as I understood, properties were valued lower than their market value, and this, all the more, emphasizes the image of …show more content…
Former Anglo Irish Bank chairman Sean Fitzpatrick and former executives William McAteer and Pat Whelan had pleaded not guilty to 16 charges each of providing illegally financial assistance to individuals for the purpose of buying shares in Anglo Irish Bank back in 2008.
Each charge is linked to a particular individual who allegedly received financial aid between 10 and 17 July 2008 there had been 16 people included in the charges many of them members of Quinn’s family.
After two months of hearings of complex and technical evidence from 54 witnesses, the jury needs to come with a decision. Before they come with a verdict they have been told by Judge Martin Nolan they could not serve if they worked or had previously worked in any bank including Anglo. (Cormaic, 2014)
After long hours of deliberation the verdict was pronounced: They have found that Mr Fitzpatrick was not guilty on all charges.
The other two former executives Patrick Whelan and William McAteer were found guilty of giving unlawful loans to “Maple 10”, but not guilty of giving illegal loans to any Quinn’s family members (The Journal.ie,