Independent TD Mick Wallace this week raised a number of questions about Nama and the controversial sale of its Northern Ireland loans – known as Project Eagle – to US fund Cerberus for €1.6 billion just over two years ago.

Wallace suggested that the rate at which enforcement action was taken against borrowers in the Project Eagle portfolio was lower in Northern Ireland than in the south. The Deputy tied this to an allegation on a BBC Spotlight programme that Ronnie Hanna, the former agency executive responsible for this area, helped keep some of the Northern borrowers afloat.

However, Nama has always insisted that this would not have been possible as Hanna did not have the sole discretion to decide which borrowers should be subject to enforcement, that is, have receivers appointed over their assets, and which should not. The process involved several steps and required the approval of more than just one individual. It also had to be brought to the board. Hanna himself has never commented. Wallace has been a vocal critic of Nama and regularly raises questions about Project Eagle. He has also had dealings with Cerberus himself and was the subject of just the kind of enforcement action he referred to in the Dáil.

Earlier this year, Cerberus succeeded in getting a €2 million judgment against him on foot of a guarantee he gave to Ulster Bank against one of his former developments in Dublin.

If the rate of enforcement was slower in Northern Ireland than in the Republic, it could be worth exploring. In terms of Nama action, before the portfolio was sold on , one explanation that springs to mind is that the Nama legislation and its associated power did not apply in the north, as it is part of the UK.

We don’t know one way or the other if this coloured its approach to borrowers and assets in Northern Ireland. Nor do we know much detail about the approach Cerberus took after it took over ownership of the Project Eagle portfolio of loans.