Treasury Holdings now suing NAMA for €5 billion

Slideshowbob

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/treasury-sues-nama-for-record-5bn-we-pay-the-bill-if-they-win-3101457.html

I wonder how they came up with this value of €5bn?

Did NAMA really do them that much damage or was it not done by themselves in paying too much for properties during the boom?

It's going to be an interesting one !!!

As the Tanaiste and the Taoiseach encouraged us to put our nose to the grindstone for the greater good of the nation and all that, could Treasury have misinterpreted this and commenced assaults in the wrong direction?!?

Dob74

This just exposes what a scam NAMA is.
The softy softy approach never works with deadbeats. If someone owes you money you have to go strait for the throat.
Treasury have been given some nice tenants by the state, NAMA amongst them.

Time to go after every debtor of NAMA make them and make them bankrupt if they can not pay back there debts. The taxpayer has given massive debtors plenty of time to pay back what they owe, the holiday has to end.
The average guy who bought there house between 04 and 08 is still being squezzed and being given no debt forgivness.
Time to put pressure on the big fish.

population

Ironic isn't it? NAMA only exists to see that arrogant feckers like Treasury Holdings don't have to actually pay for their colossal mistakes. If heaven forbid they were actually able to win this case then it would start off a stampede amongst the builder classes to try and sue the state. NAMA had better have all of its legislation and procedures in place in relation to this because there are none more self entitled and ungrateful than the construction cartel.

Slideshowbob

population wrote: »

Ironic isn't it? NAMA only exists to see that arrogant feckers like Treasury Holdings don't have to actually pay for their colossal mistakes. If heaven forbid they were actually able to win this case then it would start off a stampede amongst the builder classes to try and sue the state. NAMA had better have all of its legislation and procedures in place in relation to this because there are none more self entitled and ungrateful than the construction cartel.

Nice points but why do you tar builders and construction as the same thing as development. If you examine closer they are not.

Treasury are essentially developers, for many jobs around Dublin in recent years they contracted construction companies under contract to expedite building projects.

Developers by their nature undertook huge speculation through site acquisition.

A contractor / builder in the tradition sense will only carry out building works as requested by a client

woodoo

If this is awarded then it just shows the shambles this country is. If its legally possible to successfully sue for this amount then the people who designed NAMA and who work in it have a lot to answer for.

I think Treasury need to be ruthlessly gone after now and destroy them in the process if they can't honour their debts.

Farmer Pudsey

''Are we suprised are we f##k'' said James Gogarty

BornToKill

population wrote: »

Ironic isn't it? NAMA only exists to see that arrogant feckers like Treasury Holdings don't have to actually pay for their colossal mistakes.

That doesn't make a lot of sense though. If what you assert was true then why would Treasury bite the hand that feeds it? NAMA has had receivers appointed to 35 Treasury Holdings companies, according to Namawinelake and two weeks ago was reported to have initiated an action against Ronan and Barrett.

We'll see what happens but Treasury hasn't been awarded a cent yet.

population

BornToKill wrote: »

That doesn't make a lot of sense though. If what you assert was true then why would Treasury bite the hand that feeds it? NAMA has had receivers appointed to 35 Treasury Holdings companies, according to Namawinelake and two weeks ago was reported to have initiated an action against Ronan and Barrett.

We'll see what happens but Treasury hasn't been awarded a cent yet.

Exactly. it might not make sense to you or me, but Treasury think they can escape their troubles by claiming against the very state agency that is set up to help them. And this is not what I 'assert to be true'. They are proceeding with this action.

population

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Nice points but why do you tar builders and construction as the same thing as development. If you examine closer they are not.

Treasury are essentially developers, for many jobs around Dublin in recent years they contracted construction companies under contract to expedite building projects.

Developers by their nature undertook huge speculation through site acquisition.

A contractor / builder in the tradition sense will only carry out building works as requested by a client

Badly worded on my behalf. Point taken

BornToKill

population wrote: »

Exactly. it might not make sense to you or me, but Treasury think they can escape their troubles by claiming against the very state agency that is set up to help them. And this is not what I 'assert to be true'. They are proceeding with this action.

Yes, I can see that. But that isn't the assertion to which I was referring and which I quoted, namely:

population wrote: »

NAMA only exists to see that arrogant feckers like Treasury Holdings don't have to actually pay for their colossal mistakes.

This clearly isn't true as is demonstrated by the multiple legal actions being taken by NAMA against Treasury Holdings.

liammur

population wrote: »

Exactly. it might not make sense to you or me, but Treasury think they can escape their troubles by claiming against the very state agency that is set up to help them. And this is not what I 'assert to be true'. They are proceeding with this action.

I would agree. What a 'get out of jail card' this would be if they pull it off. Surely a film would have to follow.

FreudianSlippers

I don't see this as a bad thing: if TH are correct then we are seeing systemic mismanagement of NAMA which is supposed to be making a profit for us, the taxpayer. If they are wrong, we see that NAMA is operating as it should be and our legal costs are covered by TH. There is really no loss to the taxpayer here.

liammur

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't see this as a bad thing: if TH are correct then we are seeing systemic mismanagement of NAMA which is supposed to be making a profit for us, the taxpayer. If they are wrong, we see that NAMA is operating as it should be and our legal costs are covered by TH. There is really no loss to the taxpayer here.

There will be a loss to the taxpayer if they are not doing their jobs properly. That wouldn't surprise me at all. Rather than making a profit, I think it's minimising losses is the objective.

FreudianSlippers

liammur wrote: »

There will be a loss to the taxpayer if they are not doing their jobs properly. That wouldn't surprise me at all. Rather than making a profit, I think it's minimising losses is the objective.

Well, I meant finding out that there is a problem with the management would be a bonus to the taxpayer. There is no reason why NAMA cannot (and they are) make a profit off of minimising loss at the same time.

liammur

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well, I meant finding out that there is a problem with the management would be a bonus to the taxpayer. There is no reason why NAMA cannot (and they are) make a profit off of minimising loss at the same time.

If NAMA are being unfair and trying to make profits, then they could easily lose a big case. They must be fair to all involved. I can only see a case where they can cut losses.

How can they make a profit?

Farmer Pudsey

If Treasury win the tax payer loses if Treasury loses the tax payer loses as we will own treasury and willl have to pay legal bill it is lose lose for the tax payer