Toward the end of 2009 the Republic of Ireland’s then government passed legislation which would lead to the creation of the National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). The role of NAMA was a simple one: to remove toxic debt from the books of the Irish banks to assist in attempts to revive the national economy. The security would be acquired at a discount and purchased with Government backed bonds. In the first phase of NAMA (focusing on mortgages and other secured facilities with a minimum value of £20m) over £80bn in toxic debts were acquired.

On 25 March 2011 the High Court delivered a judgment concluding that a notice of crystallisation served by a bank (who held fixed and floating charges) on three corporate borrowers shortly before they were placed into liquidation did not alter the order of priorities.

The rapid downturn in the economy means company directors are faced with new challenges, possibly on a greater scale and more complex than ever before. Directors are responsible for managing the affairs of a company, identifying risk and ensuring that there is a strategy and a system in place to deal with those risks.

Weak and inadequate management by the directors may contribute to a weak financial performance and can lead to damage to business reputation, adverse media attention and damage to the business itself.

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.

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 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?

In the matter of Birchport Limited (under the protection of the Court) and in the matter of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990

Liquidators will welcome the recent decision of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to reduce their reporting requirement in cases where a decision has been definitively made either to relieve or not relieve them of their statutory obligation to take restriction proceedings against a company's directors.

By order dated 20 January 2009, the Supreme Court, in the first case on examinership to come before it in over 10 years, allowed an appeal against the order of the High Court dated 13 January 2009 (McGovern J) which refused the petition of Gallium Limited (trading as the First Equity Group) (under the protection of the Court) for the appointment of an examiner and appointed Mr Kieran Wallace of KPMG as examiner of the Company. The Supreme Court delivered its reasoned judgment on 3 February 2009.  

These are hard times for business. In an era of falling asset values and tight trading conditions, some firms may be facing paper losses or technical insolvency. In the fight for survival, applying for examinership is one way they can avoid being forced into a 'fire sale' of their assets. But, as Andrew Gill explains, timing is critical.