Below are some of the 19 questions Ms Murphy asked between December 2014 and last April:
Q. Does Mr Noonan believe IBRC acted in the “best financial interest of the State”? Was he aware of unsuccessful higher bids for Siteserv; and did he question why the same legal representative acted for “the seller and purchaser”?
A. Mr Noonan said IBRC was satisfied the sale was in the interests of the State. He did not answer the higher bids and legal representative questions.
Q. Can Mr Noonan provide an itemised list of all “disposals” made by IBRC:
A. “All information relating to disposals are commercially sensitive”.
Q. Why did Mr Noonan not query the reason why “such a large loss to the State occurred in the Siteserv transaction”?
A. The sale is an IBRC matter. It did not meet the financial thresholds that would trigger a mandatory Department of Finance review.
Q. Why did Mr Noonan say the Siteserv sale did not result in mandatory consultation when it involved a €100m net loss, a figure he said was the threshold which would trigger such consultation?
A. This threshold was put in place 14 days after the sale.
Q. Was Mr Noonan aware the Siteserv sale included €5m given to shareholders?
A. “Following receipt of critical representations”, he says the Department of Finance reviewed the transaction, which raised concerns about the quality of some of decisions including the shareholders payment.
Q. Can Mr Noonan confirm higher offers were turned down for Siteserv?
A. The department’s review found a higher bid for Siteserv was received after an exclusivity agreement was signed with Millington.
Q. Can Mr Noonan clarify if a €10m credit facility was extended to Siteserv before the sale?
A. Mr Noonan declined to comment.
Q. Mr Noonan is asked how many bids for Siteserv were made and if the successful bidder was among them:
A. While eight bids were received. “there is evidence certain bid amounts may have changed during the process”.