NAMA 'can't touch' developers' wives

Rebelheart

Did anybody read this story in yesterday's paper?

Despite Lenihan telling us that property developers whose debts we are now covering will not be allowed to transfer their assets into the name of family members it now seems to be the case that they can do precisely this and not be touched.

Summary: property developers will remain wealthy while the Irish taxpayer pays their massive debts.

According to that paper NAMA was created in December 2009 and only property transferred after that date will be liable to NAMA. Any property transferred before that date cannot be touched unless NAMA gets a developer declared a bankrupt. If, say, a developer is declared a bankrupt in November 2010, NAMA can go back a maximum of two years - i.e. to November 2008. This might also help explaining why Paddy McKillen is taking this action: defer the day of their own bankruptcy long enough and they will be able to keep property which they transferred within the past two years.

Other developers transfer property to wives:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/more-developers-put-wives-names-on-houses-2372886.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/mansfield-signed-family-mansion-over-to-wife-2372882.html

As that great Christy Moore anthem had it in the 80s: 'The owner says he's sad to see that things have got so bad but the captains of industry won't let him lose
He still drives a car and smokes his cigar And still he takes his family on a cruise, he'll never lose'. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

SeaFields

Yeah I saw that Seanie Fitzpatrick listed his wife as a creditor to whom he owned €50k or thereabouts so when the declared himself bankrupt she will be repaid out of his assets. FFS.

Shur FF couldn't possibly screw over all their galway tent buddies :mad:

orourkeda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKlPKsJ2Vj0

Fuhrer

Cant they just send in the criminal assets bureau?

orourkeda

Fuhrer wrote: »

Cant they just send in the criminal assets bureau?

How can they if it's legal?

tommyboy2222

Lenihan making sure his Galway tent buddies are ok.

Sure as long as we have X factor to keep us distracted why would we care ???

Sofa King Great

The article isn't actually correct in what it says. If NAMA bankrupt someone any transfers of assets in the previous 2 years become void and any transfers between 2 and 5 years ago are voidable if it can be shown that it was done to avoid creditors (which it was)

Oranage2

this really makes my stomach turn

jdivision

Nama can't but the courts can unwind them

galwayrush

I reckon this was one of the first loop holes inserted to protect FF's developer friends, FFS they were given months to arrange their affairs to protect themselves.:mad: Aw well, tough decision time, all they will do is attack the vunerable and weakest, for the good of the country for the benefit of their friends of course.


Thinking about it, next election any FF / Green person that comes to my door, i will punch them,

galwayrush

jdivision wrote: »

Nama can't but the courts can unwind them

Yeah, god help them, worst case. they will end up like Seanie Fitz having to live off their wife's multi million pensions and investments.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

prinz

Any them worth touching? Eh eh eh. DWILF's.:rolleyes:

dotsman

Um, nothing new there. The fact is that they are just using (and abusing) a very decent law that is there for normal people.

Husbands and wives often pass assets between them, and when it comes to the family home, the other spouse will always get preference than another creditor.

This is a good thing, to prevent a family losing their home due to one of the parents being a gambler/alcoholic etc who racks up massive debts and tries to secure a mortgage on the house unknown to their partner etc.

The Waltzing Consumer

dotsman wrote: »

Um, nothing new there. The fact is that they are just using (and abusing) a very decent law that is there for normal people.

Husbands and wives often pass assets between them, and when it comes to the family home, the other spouse will always get preference than another creditor.

This is a good thing, to prevent a family losing their home due to one of the parents being a gambler/alcoholic etc who racks up massive debts and tries to secure a mortgage on the house unknown to their partner etc.

Well I am glad you have pointed that out, now I feel sorry for these greedy developer bastards, who have used our legal system to remain wealthy through passing assets to the wives or families. As long as the law was designed to help a gambler/alcoholic spouse, I don't mind it being used by f**ks who should be in jail

dotsman

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well I am glad you have pointed that out, now I feel sorry for these greedy developer bastards, who have used our legal system to remain wealthy through passing assets to the wives or families. As long as the law was designed to help a gambler/alcoholic spouse, I don't mind it being used by f**ks who should be in jail

Well, what do you want, one law for the rich and one for the poor?

galwayrush

dotsman wrote: »

Well, what do you want, one law for the rich and one for the poor?

I'd like that law changed, it's certainly works out that way here.:mad:

dotsman

galwayrush wrote: »

I'd like that law changed, it's certainly works out that way here.:mad:

And what would you change it to? The very same law that they are using is available to me and you.

Biggins

Seen that report. Yet another legal loophole that will allow those (with too many complicated conections to FF/FG) to escape from their financial responsibilities.

Yet one more disgrace to notch up on the history of our state and those in power who allowing it to happen.

galwayrush

dotsman wrote: »

And what would you change it to? The very same law that they are using is available to me and you.

I can't get away with fraud because i am not rich enough.I would like loopholes closed so we are all teated equally, rather than some elite super rich getting away with their crimes simply because they can afford it.

tricky D

dotsman wrote: »

Well, what do you want, one law for the rich and one for the poor?

Ehhh, we already have this. We also have a third law for the lawyers which has fcuk all to do with any notion like justice and at €500+/hr.

dotsman

galwayrush wrote: »

I can't get away with fraud because i am not rich enough.I would like loopholes closed so we are all teated equally, rather than some elite super rich getting away with their crimes simply because they can afford it.

I agree that something needs to be done. I stated that they are abusing this law. However, What I am asking is "what should be done"? Laws regarding assets and family homes exist for a very good reason and are used by all, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. So again, I would ask, how should we amend this law to lose these loopholes?

tricky D wrote: »

Ehhh, we already have this. We also have a third law for the lawyers which has fcuk all to do with any notion like justice and at €500+/hr.

How so? It's the same law, applied equally to everyone. In this particular case, the developers in question are using the law as an escape clause and against the spirit of the law. As above, how do you propose we change the law so that it is only applied in the cases in which it is intended?

I do want to see the law changed, and am disgusted that it is being abused in this way. But I am not going to have a knee-jerk reaction to the situation and ramble on about perceived "rich vs poor" BS. It needs to be thought out practically and changed for the better, but merely moaning about it is not going to do that.

tricky D

dotsman wrote: »

How so? It's the same law, applied equally to everyone. In this particular case, the developers in question are using the law as an escape clause and against the spirit of the law. As above, how do you propose we change the law so that it is only applied in the cases in which it is intended?

Poor person can't pay TV licence debt likely goes to jail
Rich person can't pay debts and goes into bankruptcy
Lawyer uses clients funds for fraudulent house purchases lives it up in Portugal

Head down to the lower criminal courts some day - it's an eye opener in relation to how much 'law' you get depends on how much you can afford.

dotsman

tricky D wrote: »

Poor person can't pay TV licence debt likely goes to jail
Rich person can't pay debts and goes into bankruptcy

This has to be the most mis-used example ever. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and pencils.

The above two scenarios are completely different. A person not having a TV licence is breaking the law. They are required to have a tv licence if they wish to purchase a tv. Likewise, if they refuse to pay their debts, the debt, obtained through false pretenses, is to the state, therefore considered very badly.

Personally, I'm completely against the concept of a tv licence, but that doesn't take away from the fact it currently is the law and applies to all, both rich and poor equally. Are you also arguing that low income people should also be exempt from car insurance, speeding tickets etc.

A lot of "Rich" people you are referring to are companies. The companies can be liquidated, but unless it can be proven that the debts were built up fraudulently by specific directors, little can be done. Likewise, a "rich" person can be imprisoned for bankruptcy if it is proven that they acted irresponsibly/fraudulently.

tricky D wrote: »

Lawyer uses clients funds for fraudulent house purchases lives it up in Portugal

If you can't beat them, join them!

tricky D wrote: »

Head down to the lower criminal courts some day - it's an eye opener in relation to how much 'law' you get depends on how much you can afford.

I have been to various courts in this country. I have seen some shocking things, where time and time again repeat offenders, who clearly do not give a fcuk about society or how much they cost the taxpayers, are continuously screwing a broken system. I haven't seen anything regarding your reference to rich and poor being treated differently by the courts.

mcmoustache

If our justice system won't deal with these injustices, how long before the simmering resentment and frustration ends up with a developer or dirty banker getting killed by a vigilante?

I don't think we have any such tradition here but a lot of people are pissed off and getting more pissed off as they need to pay more to subsidise
the poor gambling decisions made by the wealthy. I think it's only a matter of time before a lunatic goes too far.

Maybe we should start a dead pool of bankers, politicians and developers?

galwayrush

mcmoustache wrote: »

If our justice system won't deal with these injustices, how long before the simmering resentment and frustration ends up with a developer or dirty banker getting killed by a vigilante?

I don't think we have any such tradition here but a lot of people are pissed off and getting more pissed off as they need to pay more to subsidise
the poor gambling decisions made by the wealthy. I think it's only a matter of time before a lunatic goes too far.

Maybe we should start a dead pool of bankers, politicians and developers?

FF made the rules, and look at the expected results. They even brought in new laws governing the ownership of guns, i wonder if the 2 are related.....:rolleyes:

oppenheimer1

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

Lenihan making sure his Galway tent buddies are ok.

Sure as long as we have X factor to keep us distracted why would we care ???

galwayrush wrote: »

I reckon this was one of the first loop holes inserted to protect FF's developer friends, FFS they were given months to arrange their affairs to protect themselves.:mad: Aw well, tough decision time, all they will do is attack the vunerable and weakest, for the good of the country for the benefit of their friends of course.


Thinking about it, next election any FF / Green person that comes to my door, i will punch them,

Biggins wrote: »

Seen that report. Yet another legal loophole that will allow those (with too many complicated conections to FF/FG) to escape from their financial responsibilities.

Yet one more disgrace to notch up on the history of our state and those in power who allowing it to happen.

It isn't a case of the government protecting their friends but more a legal issue in that it is unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Trust that rag the Irish Independent to twist the story to the populist agenda.

SEPT 23 1989

Its just drip......drip.... drip

we are as a people being fcuked over in slow motion

orourkeda

jdivision wrote: »

Nama can't but the courts can unwind them

If so, why hasn't this been done and on what grounds could they proceed

tricky D

dotsman wrote: »

The above two scenarios are completely different.

Exactly. A poor person's situation is more often a crime, a rich person's is more of a dilemma.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It isn't a case of the government protecting their friends but more a legal issue in that it is unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Trust that rag the Irish Independent to twist the story to the populist agenda.

They didn't twist anything. They stated a legal fact. A legal fact that was brought in by... O'' wait... Lenihan, who is a barrister and Cowen, who is a solicitor!
They knew EXACTLY what they were doing and the ramifications and advantages within it.
...And if in the extreme likelihood that they were that stupid not to see the legal loophole (to help their friends?), they yet again, don't deserve to be running a legal office, never mind the whole state of Ireland!

...As for the developers, they know how to pass on tips to each other or what tricks to try as how to try and look humble in public. ...Change your car mate? - for example:

If you want to look a bit humbled, try a Volkswagen Golf. Sean Fitzpatrick had himself picked up in one after his overnight in Bray Garda station. As Ronald Quinlan reported recently in this paper, Bernard McNamara drove a Golf into work the day after the Commercial Court registered a €62m judgement against him over the Ringsend Glass Bottle site.

The Golf is a great bit of penance for now. If things get any worse, it might be necessary to drop down to a Polo. You might even consider a Skoda, which any taxi driver will tell you is the same car with a different badge and smaller price.

When you’re faced with the media, pour on the humility. If you feel a few tears might help, just think about the difference between a Volkswagen Golf and a helicopter.

The first thing you should do is point out that even though you are an honourable man who always pays what he owes, you aren’t going to pay what you owe because you can’t. You’re under oath, so it’s best to tell the truth. After that, let your barrister off on a few rounds of High-Court ping-pong. The rules of the game are simple – every time the court says you have to pay the impatient bastards who don’t understand how business works, you come up with a new survival plan and appeal to the Supreme Court.

You don’t need to outrun NAMA. You just need to make sure they catch other developers before you. The angry man on the street will be funnelling money into the banks for years to pay off your debts, so he will be demanding some builder-blood.
Of course NAMA will try and pay you to manage the build out of your existing development projects. Be careful about this. That money is going to go through you like prune juice and into the hands of people you owe money to. Do you really want to give them the satisfaction? Just offer to do the work for next to nothing, to help get this country back on its feet making land unaffordable one more time. Every person in the country will love you for that kind of talk.

http://patfitzpatrick.ie/developers-survival-guide/

ghostdancer

tricky D wrote: »

Ehhh, we already have this. We also have a third law for the lawyers which has fcuk all to do with any notion like justice and at €500+/hr.

no, we don't.

the stupidity and 'moral outrage' on boards lately is turning it into little more than Joe Duffy or The Sun, on the internet...

tricky D

ghostdancer wrote: »

no, we don't.

the stupidity and 'moral outrage' on boards lately is turning it into little more than Joe Duffy or The Sun, on the internet...

So you've a different opinion. Even though I'm not sure what it is, I'll respect it and refrain from merely engaging in cheap insults in lieu of discussion. Feel free to do so too.

Notorious97

Nothing in this country surprises me any more, its like whats the worst that could happen? happens all the time. anybody who contributed to the downfall of this economy should be shot, bankers, developers, government officials.

Would anybody actually be outraged to turn on the news one day and see such and such from FF has been shot dead? Id probably applaud the killer. I know this wont fix the countries problems but im sure it would provide some satisfaction knowing they suffered some pain.

The fact they can get through these loop holes is a disgrce!

ejmaztec

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It isn't a case of the government protecting their friends but more a legal issue in that it is unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Trust that rag the Irish Independent to twist the story to the populist agenda.

Given that there are a lot of lawyers controlling our lives from the Dail, they must be extremely thick as regards legal time-limits etc., or purposefully dragged out the actions against the offending parties, to give them more time to get their affairs in order (i.e. grab the loot before it gets grabbed by the government).

It will take a long time to check all of the transactions, and after a few years going through the legal procedures, it will fizzle out and then be swept under the carpet.

In the meantime, the tax-payer will be well and truly shafted, and the perpetrators will still be living the good-life on the millions stashed away.

jdivision

galwayrush wrote: »

Yeah, god help them, worst case. they will end up like Seanie Fitz having to live off their wife's multi million pensions and investments.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hey, I agree with your point, I'm just saying the article as written is misleading - Nama wouldn't be the ones going after the wives, the courts are. What happened with Fitzpatrick was terrible and if i was minister for justice I would have taken a case against the dividing of assets that was done there just to make a point and would have also passed legislation to ensure it could never happen again.

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

They didn't twist anything. They stated a legal fact. A legal fact that was brought in by... O'' wait... Lenihan, who is a barrister and Cowen, who is a solicitor.

Solicitor or barrister, it still doesn't change the fact that it is unconstitutional to legislate retroactively. It takes time to write law, particularly to write law that won't be open to interpretation and a law that is likely to be challenged in the high and supreme courts.

It could be argued that they dragged their heels on NAMA to allow people to move assets into different names, but the facts don't bare that out.

Anyway if push comes to shove, NAMA can bankrupt people and strip their assets that way along with examining transactions which may have been made in order to frustrate creditors.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

...It could be argued that they dragged their heels on NAMA to allow people to move assets into different names, but the facts don't bare that out...

What facts exactly bare that out?

A bunch of barrister/solicitor TD's draw up a law that has a massive loophole in it and they shove it through the Dail by vote. 77 FF (and independents) voted on it. The side-effect by coincidence (?) was that when developers got wind of what was coming, there was a sudden trasfer of items into their wives names faster than Shergar won his last grand national from the starting line-up!

The After Hours Troll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

What facts exactly bare that out?

A bunch of barrister/solicitor TD's draw up a law that has a massive loophole in it and they shove it through the Dail by vote. 77 FF (and independents) voted on it. The side-effect by coincidence (?) was that when developers got wind of what was coming, there was a sudden trasfer of items into their wives names faster than Shergar won his last grand national from the starting line-up!

It isn't a loophole. If it was a loophole it could be closed. The provision exists because of article 15.5.1 of the constitution. Blaming Lenihan and Cowen for things in the constitution is a bit much and there is no point is having the legislation say otherwise because it would be thrown out by the supreme court.

The facts bare out that it was passed as soon as possible because as soon as the legislation was ready, it was passed. If the opposition had its way they would still be filibustering it through the Dáil.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It isn't a loophole. If it was a loophole it could be closed. The provision exists because of article 15.5.1 of the constitution. Blaming Lenihan and Cowen for things in the constitution is a bit much and there is no point is having the legislation say otherwise because it would be thrown out by the supreme court.

The facts bare out that it was passed as soon as possible because as soon as the legislation was ready, it was passed. If the opposition had its way they would still be filibustering it through the Dáil.

I don't blame Cowen for the constitution, I blame Cowen and co for drawing up the loopholed Nama laws and the crafty clauses in it that allowed the transfer of property/items to wives conveniently so that they could not be gained back to pay off their massive debts.

Seeing as FG is just as in bed it seems with the developers and banks just as much sometimes, I seriously doubt that they would have tried too hard to filibuster the NAMA law.
Their mates too appreciate the escape holes too in it!

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

I don't blame Cowen for the constitution, I blame Cowen and co for drawing up the loopholed Nama laws and the crafty clauses in it that allowed the transfer of property/items to wives conveniently so that they could not be gained back to pay off their massive debts.

Seeing as FG is just as in bed it seems with the developers and banks just as much sometimes, I seriously doubt that they would have tried too hard to filibuster the NAMA law.
Their mates too appreciate the escape holes too in it!

The provisions in the law can only take effect after it has passed and signed(Dec 2009). The law allows transactions and transfers to be looked at after it was passed but not before. This was not a convenient loop-hole organised to save Cowens friends, but a legal necessity.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The provisions in the law can only take effect after it has passed and signed(Dec 2009). The law allows transactions and transfers to be looked at after it was passed but not before. This was not a convenient loop-hole organised to save Cowens friends, but a legal necessity.

It was a legal necessity to let stuff be transferred to the wives and not be gained back?

I'm sorry but we will have to agree to differ on that one.

ejmaztec

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The provisions in the law can only take effect after it has passed and signed(Dec 2009). The law allows transactions and transfers to be looked at after it was passed but not before. This was not a convenient loop-hole organised to save Cowens friends, but a legal necessity.

To which law are you referring? The relevant bankruptcy and insolvency laws have been in force for donkey's years.

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

It was a legal necessity to let stuff be transferred to the wives and not be gained back?

I'm sorry but we will have to agree to differ on that one.

Its a legal necessity to prevent pre-dating the effects of legislation. Pre-dating is illegal.

oppenheimer1

ejmaztec wrote: »

To which law are you referring? The relevant bankruptcy and insolvency laws have been in force for donkey's years.

The provisions of NAMA are in addition to bankruptcy and insolvency laws and are meant to be more user friendly than the existing ancient and cumbersome regulations. The two rules run in parallel. Nama retains the option to make debtors bankrupt, but bankruptcy is expensive and usually results in a worse outcome for all involved.

The point I'm making is that provisions in the NAMA legislation cannot have effects on transactions that pre-date the enactment of the legislation. This is due to that being considered retroactive legislation which is unconstitutional and also illegal under the universal declaration of human rights.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The provisions of NAMA are in addition to bankruptcy and insolvency laws and are meant to be more user friendly than the existing ancient and cumbersome regulations. The two rules run in parallel. Nama retains the option to make debtors bankrupt, but bankruptcy is expensive and usually results in a worse outcome for all involved.

The point I'm making is that provisions in the NAMA legislation cannot have effects on transactions that pre-date the enactment of the legislation. This is due to that being considered retroactive legislation which is unconstitutional and also illegal under the universal declaration of human rights.

Again I disagree with your opinion and I base this on previous pre-existing laws.

The Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1872 makes for such provisions in the state of trying to reclaim money owed. As does a subsequent court case that set precedent (In State re Lowe 1988) where the conveyance of items was made to defraud, defray and/or delay pre-existing creditors. The court ruled that because such a transaction of transfer of goods between one family member and another, such sale was a mistrust of goods and a sale not "made in good faith". Such a transfer was then set out to be illegal. They based their decision alone on a previous case (National Bank v Behan 1913) where similar circumstances were made by some to try and escape paying what they should have!

My point being that there are already pre-existing laws that can be inacted but they are conveniently not being done so!
I wonder why? Conveniently forgot about I must wonder!
The NAMA legislation was built on top of such pre-existing laws but just because the NAMA laws additionally exist now, that DOES NOT make the previous laws null and void. The NAMA legislation is an addition to such laws, not a replacement.

oppenheimer1

Biggins wrote: »

Again I disagree with your opinion and I base this on previous pre-existing laws.

The Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1872 makes for such provisions in the state of trying to reclaim money owed. As does a subsequent court case that set precedent (In State re Lowe 1988) where the conveyance of items was made to defraud, defray and/or delay pre-existing creditors. The court ruled that because such a transaction of transfer of goods between one family member and another, such sale was a mistrust of goods and a sale not "made in good faith". Such a transfer was then set out to be illegal. They based their decision alone on a previous case (National Bank v Behan 1913) where similar circumstances were made by some to try and escape paying what they should have!

My point being that there are already pre-existing laws that can be inacted but they are conveniently not being done so!
I wonder why? Conveniently forgot about I must wonder!
The NAMA legislation was built on top of such pre-existing laws but just because the NAMA laws additionally exist now, that DOES NOT make the previous laws null and void. The NAMA legislation is an addition to such laws, not a replacement.

Exactly. NAMA can use the existing and cumbersome regulations, but the newer more streamlined ones can only effect transactions that took place after the enactment of the NAMA legislation. If NAMA wants to get properties that were transferred before this date it has to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. The Nama provisions allow the assets to be seized from wives without having to make the developer bankrupt. This is cheaper and quicker, and a significant departure from the existing law.

As to why the existing regulations aren't being used I cannot answer that. All I'm doing is explaining the reason for the Dec 2009 date that is in the NAMA bill.

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

Again I disagree with your opinion and I base this on previous pre-existing laws.

The Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1872 makes for such provisions in the state of trying to reclaim money owed. As does a subsequent court case that set precedent (In State re Lowe 1988) where the conveyance of items was made to defraud, defray and/or delay pre-existing creditors. The court ruled that because such a transaction of transfer of goods between one family member and another, such sale was a mistrust of goods and a sale not "made in good faith". Such a transfer was then set out to be illegal. They based their decision alone on a previous case (National Bank v Behan 1913) where similar circumstances were made by some to try and escape paying what they should have!

My point being that there are already pre-existing laws that can be inacted but they are conveniently not being done so!
I wonder why? Conveniently forgot about I must wonder!
The NAMA legislation was built on top of such pre-existing laws but just because the NAMA laws additionally exist now, that DOES NOT make the previous laws null and void. The NAMA legislation is an addition to such laws, not a replacement.

As I mentioned in another thread, bankruptcy proceedings will be delayed for the relevant "characters", so that whatever dodgy transfers of assets there are, will just happen to have taken place outside the period under scrutiny.

One chap whose property companies went belly up two years ago, isn't attending a court-hearing until early next year, so we can only wonder.

Biggins

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Exactly. NAMA can use the existing and cumbersome regulations, but the newer more streamlined ones can only effect transactions that took place after the enactment of the NAMA legislation.

As to why the existing regulations aren't being used I cannot answer that. All I'm doing is explaining the reason for the Dec 2009 date that is in the NAMA bill.

Again the point I make is that, where the NAMA legal team cannot use their new personal regulatory powers, they can refer back to previous pre-dated established ones to enact and cancel the transfer of goods if its established that the said transfer was done to defray/avoid/etc payments that are owed.

To date this has not happened but for others to say the wife's goods transfer can't be touched, is wrong.

jdivision

orourkeda wrote: »

If so, why hasn't this been done and on what grounds could they proceed

Because Nama has only taken its first legal action so far. What grounds? It's a transfer to avoid assets being seized. Therefore the court can reverse them.

soundbyte

Arrah sh!te, I thought this was going to be like a Readers' Wives section in a skin mag. For shame AH.

/Goes to google image search Sean Dunne's wife