This Q&A focuses on the need to modernise the EU Insolvency Regulation to facilitate the restructuring of businesses in financial difficulty.

Questions include: why do the current rules need updating, what is the impact of the insolvency rules on the economy, how many businesses are affected and what are the next steps?

On 26 December last, the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was signed into law by the President.

The various provisions of the Act will come into force through commencement orders which will be made by the Minister for Justice. It is expected that certain sections of the Act relating to its Establishment Day and related provisions, will be commenced shortly.

The remaining provisions will then come into operation on a phased basis under Section 1(2) of the Act, as designated by orders to be made by the Minister.

The Personal Insolvency Bill has now passed through the Dail and will commence in the Seanad. The Minister for Justice has commented that the intention is still to have the Bill enacted by Christmas.

On 4 July 2012, the Minister for Finance, Mr Michael Noonan, launched a public consultation on the tax implications of appointing a receiver. The consultation paper was jointly issued by the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners and invited input by 4 September 2012 from interested parties in relation to technical and practical tax implications concerning the appointment of receivers.

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

The Personal Insolvency Bill 2012 has passed Committee Stage in the Dáil. The Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality made a number of changes to the Bill, many of these being technical changes to clarify provisions or to correct inconsistencies.

Key changes

Some of the key changes made by the Select Committee were as follows:

The Irish telecommunications company eircom recently successfully concluded its restructuring through the Irish examinership process. This examinership is both the largest in terms of the overall quantum of debt that was restructured and also the largest successful restructuring through examinership in Ireland to date. The speed with which the restructuring of this strategically important company was concluded was due in large part to the degree of pre-negotiation between the company and its lenders before the process commenced.

In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)

In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.

One of the benefits to a corporate form of entity is the protection of shareholders from liability for obligations of the corporation. Of course, as we all know, there are still legal claims which could impose liability on a corporate shareholder for obligations of the corporation. In a recent case, a former executive of a corporation tried to assert a tortious interference claim against a majority shareholder, when it terminated severance payments that were owed to the executive. (Nation v. American Capital, Ltd., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.