Investor's five key arguments
Published 06/10/2010 | 05:00
Paddy McKillen will argue five key points in his challenge to NAMA*
1. The procedures adopted by NAMA and the interpretation of the Act, including the broad definition of an eligible asset, involves a denial of McKillen's constitutional right to fair procedures.
2. In exercising its discretion to acquire loans, NAMA failed to have regard to relevant considerations.
3. The decision to acquire loans that, he claims, was taken prior to the establishment of NAMA, cannot be validly ratified and are therefore null and void.
4. Under a correct interpretation of a European Commission decision, at least some of a borrowers loans must be impaired before loans can be acquired.
5. If McKillen is wrong on the issues of the requirements for an impaired borrower and/or fair procures, he will -- as a last resort -- argue that the NAMA Act is unconstitutional because of what is at issue and the breadth of the definition of an eligible asset.
* The State, which will open its defence next week, will argue -- amongst other things -- that McKillen's loans pose a potential systemic risk in the event of default and that he has no constitutional right to make any representations to NAMA.