In the current economic climate, many companies are facing the prospect of their business becoming insolvent.

From an employer’s, and indeed an insolvency practitioner’s perspective, the rights and obligations owing to employees of which they need to be aware depend on the nature of the insolvency and the terms of the contract of employment.

On Thursday, Ireland's Finance Minister Brian Lenihan released a "Minister's Statement on Banking" announcing new commitments to troubled Irish banks. The statement began: "It is an urgent and immediate priority to reinforce international market confidence in our ability and commitment to restore our banking system to health and to secure the long-term sustainability of our fiscal position." Toward that end, Mr. Lenihan announced increased commitments to banks and building societies.

In this recession like no other, enforcement over complete and incomplete residential and other property developments is a common scenario faced by both bank and Insolvency Practitioner alike. The dilemma initially appears quite stark; Should the bank advance further monies to complete out developments in order to maximise realisations or sell the site "as is" to another developer but at a significantly discounted price? The purpose of this article is to consider the issues which warrant consideration before devising an enforcement strategy in relation to incomplete developments.

The Central Bank is working on a proposal, agreed with the other authorities as part of the package of measures, to submit a revised re-structuring proposal in compliance with EU competition law for Anglo Irish Bank. The objective is to submit an agreement by the end of January 2011.

Ireland has a temporary insolvency process known as “court protection” and commonly called examinership. This provides a breathing space within which a court will determine whether parts of the business can survive after restructuring. This may entail existing leases being disclaimed. The recent case of Bestseller Retail Ireland Limited gives an interesting example of how the court will exercise its discretion in considering an application to disclaim a lease.

Background

The Irish President has signed the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010 (the Act) into lrish law. The Act grants far reaching and unprecedented powers to the Irish Minister for Finance to facilitate the restructuring and stabilisation of the troubled Irish banking sector.

The intellectual property (IP) rights that protect key software, brands and technical processes can be amongst the most valuable assets of a company. But what happens to IP rights when a company becomes insolvent? What happens to the insolvent company's licences, and to its licensees who may have invested significant amounts of time and money in setting up manufacturing facilities to exploit the licensed technology or in advertising under a particular trade mark?

The Law Reform Commission (LRC) launched its Report on Personal Debt Management and Debt Enforcement, on 16 December 2010, at its Annual Conference. The Report makes 200 recommendations for reform, and also contains a draft Personal Insolvency Bill. Reform of personal debt law must be introduced next year to comply with the Government's agreement with the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.

In Re McInerney Homes Limited

In the McInerney case, the company and the examiner sought to have schemes confirmed which would result in an immediate payment to a banking syndicate of €25 million. The banking syndicate contended that the discounted current value which they expected to recover from their security outside any schemes was €50 million.

Kerr & Ors v Conduit Enterprises Ltd

In 1997 the two directors of the company and others purchased a building and leased it to the company. Ownership of the company changed hands a number of times and, in 2008, the then new owners purported to void the lease on the basis that it had never been approved by shareholder resolution. The landlords issued proceedings seeking a declaration that the lease was valid.

The court held that: