Cantillon: INBS hearings resume – this could go on . . .

The Central Bank of Ireland's inquiry into alleged regulatory breaches by five former directors and senior managers at the now-defunct Irish Nationwide Building Society will resume its public hearings in Dublin this morning.

On November 30th, the three-member panel, chaired by solicitor Marian Shanley, set out the seven charges being levelled against the quintet.

There were submissions on how the inquiry might approach each module of its work, proof of documents and legal issues around evidence. Some 110,000 documents have been submitted by the regulator to the panel for consideration.

It also heard an application from Michael Fingleton, INBS's chief executive of 38 years before its nationalisation, to have the hearings postponed until after his legal appeal to its work has been heard in June of next year.

Trinity’s climate initiative: a cool move or just hot air?

---

Cantillon: Is inflation about to make a comeback?

---

CSO’s economic figures again raise eyebrows

---

Cantillon: Is your activity tracker on its last legs?

---

The High Court ruled against Fingleton on this matter in January and the former INBS chief executive has signalled that he could go all the way to the European courts to press his rights.

Former INBS chairman Michael Walsh didn’t attend the previous hearing on November 30th but his legal counsel gave a broad outline as to why he would be seeking to have the inquiry terminated. These include the long period of time since he has been a director of the failed lender and the fact that he has not had access to any of its documentation since that point.

The inquiry has set aside two days to hear this matter, with Walsh expected to be in attendance to set out his case.

It is not clear if the inquiry will need the full two days to hear Walsh’s application. The panel had set aside two days for the previous hearings but only needed to use one of them in the finish.

Either way, it will likely be the new year before we have its decision on the applications by both Fingleton and Walsh.

It has already taken more than six years to get to this point and even if the panel decides to reject the applications and press on, there can be no certainty as to when we will have an outcome from its work given the scale and complexities involved in this issue.