Property developer sues Nama over leaking of information

The National Asset Management Agency is being sued by Irish property developer Paddy McKillen in relation to the leaking of information about his businesses from his time dealing with the State body.

This has emerged following the conviction of Enda Farrell, a former Nama official who pleaded guilty to eight counts of unlawfully disclosing information, between May and July 2012 and was given a two-year suspended sentence earlier this month.

Proceedings

Information relating to Mr McKillen's businesses was among the documents sent by Farrell to named individuals in the investment companies QED Equity Ltd and Canaccord Genuity.

In a written answer this week to questions from Fianna Fáil TD Marc MacSharry relating to the leaking of debtors' information from Nama, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan confirmed proceedings were being taken against the agency.

“I am advised by Nama that one set of proceedings have been initiated against it by a debtor in respect of the issue raised by the deputy,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Mr McKillen told The Irish Times he is taking two actions against Nama.

"Paddy McKillen has issued High Court proceedings for misfeasance in public office against the Minister for Finance, the former secretary general of the Department of Finance, John Moran, and Nama and its officials Paul Hennigan and Enda Farrell," she said.

On the second action, she said: “The case is ongoing and the claim arises from a number of issues, one of which is the Enda Farrell leaks.”

Mr MacSharry last week called for an independent investigation into the leaking of information from Nama in connection with some 800 debtors.

This followed an approach made to him by a confidential source.

More details

Mr MacSharry said yesterday that the answers provided by the Minister were “vague” and he planned to press for more details on the disclosures.

He would be maintaining his call for an inquiry and remained concerned about the possible implications for taxpayers in terms of lost revenue.

In his answers, Mr Noonan said Nama did not consider it incurred any loss arising from the leaking of information connected with debtors.

And there was no evidence to suggest that there were connections between the recipients of the leaked documents and bidders for assets offered for sale by Nama debtors.

As a result, Nama had “not made or does not intend to make any proposals to compensate any party in respect of this matter”.

No comment was available from Nama.