The Irish Independent reports that Irish Nationwide Building Society, which is set to receive up to a €2bn state bailout over the coming months, is understood to have yet to begin a critical state-aid restructuring plan for the European Commission.

Sources said, however, that the issue is likely to top an agenda at a board meeting this week. A spokesperson declined to comment other than to say Irish Nationwide is "completing its planning in accordance with the timetable set down by the Department of Finance".

There had been speculation that Irish Nationwide and EBS Building Society, with which it is in merger talks since last autumn, would be able to present a joint viability plan to Brussels. However, the Irish Independent has established that both institutions will have to submit separate restructuring plans -- which must show how they can repay the State within five years. If bailed-out institutions cannot prove that they have a viable future, Brussels has made it clear they must outline how they could be wound down over time.

EBS is expected to require up to €400m from the Government as it stomachs discounts relating to about €900m of risky property loans it is transferring to the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Irish Nationwide is hiving off 80pc of its €10bn-plus loan book into the State 'bad bank' -- leaving it with about €2bn of residential mortgages and an estimated €5.5bn deposit book.

A spokesman for EBS said a draft of its restructuring plan was "well advanced".

EBS and Irish Nationwide each held extraordinary general meetings for their members last December, paving the way for Finance Minister Brian Lenihan to bail them out by taking special shares in the mutual societies. The shares will give the minister extraordinary powers over both institutions.

The Government will have to start injecting fresh cash into both lenders over the next six to eight weeks, as discounts faced on their first tranches of NAMA-bound loans blow holes in their capital reserves.

Meanwhile, Irish Nationwide chief executive Gerry McGinn has explained to staff within the past week that an original target of reaching a merger agreement with EBS by the end of last month has been missed, largely due to the workload faced by management in relation to NAMA. Mr McGinn described the preparation of documentation for NAMA as a "huge enterprise, absorbing enormous resources".

It is unlikely that negotiations between both sides will hit an advanced stage until next month, when the first of the NAMA transfers have been completed.

The Irish Independent also reports that bids for Greenstar's Irish and UK businesses are due in by the end of the week, with Bord na Mona and One51 understood to be circling the waste business's Irish division.

Parent company NTR has been exploring the sale of Greenstar Ireland and UK for about four weeks, using its internal corporate finance team and external advisers.

Interested parties have now been given until the end of the week to lodge indicative bids, which could be up to €250m for both arms.

Greenstar is Ireland's biggest waste contractor, boasting an annual turnover of close to €170m.

The Irish business is a natural fit with Bord na Mona, which has committed itself to "resource recovery" as part of its Contract With Nature strategy.

A spokesman for the peat company declined to comment on the potential acquisition, but it is understood that Bord na Mona is running the rule over Greenstar.

Interest

Philip Lynch's One51, which is pinning much of its expansionary hopes around its Environmental Services division, is also believed to be in the fray, but well-placed sources stressed that interest was not confined to One51 and Bord na Mona.

Market sources have expressed "surprise" at NTR's decision to potentially sell Greenstar UK and Ireland, since the business makes up a significant part of NTR's stable and has been a core part of the company's investment strategy in recent years.

Acknowledging the speculation about Greenstar, an NTR spokesman said that while the plc "does not, as a matter of policy, comment on speculation", it could confirm that it "regularly explores strategic options for different parts of its portfolio".

The Irish Times reports that Taoiseach Brian Cowen formally opened the Irish Innovation Center in San José, California, last last night Irish time.

The centre is the brainchild of the Irish Technology Leadership Group (ITLG), a Silicon Valley-based group of Irish and Irish-American technology executives, who are trying to foster the growth of innovative Irish start-up companies.

The group’s recently appointed chairman, former Intel chief executive Craig Barrett, officially opened the centre with Mr Cowen.

The 8,000sq ft facility is in a 19th-century building in downtown San José. It will have deskspace for about 50 people when the fit-out is completed.

Already, a number of Irish companies looking to start doing business in Silicon Valley have signed up to be tenants of the centre, according to Gordon Ciochon, executive director of the Irish Innovation Center.

The idea for the Irish Innovation Center grew out of a proposal brought to the Global Irish Economic Forum held at Farmleigh last September by ITLG co-founder John Hartnett.

In December last year the Government provided $251,000 (€182,000) to the ITLG so it could establish a secretariat to support its work. “We said in September 2009 we would do it, and six months later here we are,” said Mr Hartnett.

“We are really trying to talk the talk and walk the walk.”

He singled out Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin for praise, saying he “stepped up in his role” by embracing the opportunity to back the IIC.

Although formally opened yesterday, final building work on the historic building in downtown San José is still being carried out. It is expected to be ready for occupation by the end of April.

Mr Hartnett, a former global head of sales with smartphone maker Palm, compared the development to the Digital Hub project in Dublin’s Liberties.

That project began by refurbishing run-down buildings in the inner city and has now expanded to have 150,000sq ft of office space occupied by 68 companies. “We would envisage having a waiting list of companies who want to be in here because of our proven success,” said Mr Ciochon.

Both he and Mr Hartnett said the innovation centre was different from other facilities because tenants would be able to use the ITLG’s network of contacts to access business partners and potential investors.

Of the $17.6 billion invested by venture capitalists in the US last year, about $7 billion was invested in companies in the Silicon Valley area. “Young companies who want smart money should be coming here,” said Mr Hartnett. “This is not about real estate – it’s all about access to technology, capital and connections.”

The ITLG is setting up its own venture capital arm, Irish Technology Capital, which will invest in promising Irish technology start-ups.

The building in which the Irish Innovation Center is located is owned by Tom McEnery, a former mayor of San José who was instrumental in establishing the San José and Dublin “Sister City Program” in 1986.

The Irish Times also reports that the directors of property investment firm Quinlan Private have set up a new real estate business under the name Avestus Capital Partners. The move follows the resignation of founding partner Derek Quinlan from the company last year.

Thomas Dowd, Peter Donnelly, Olan Cremin and Mark O’Donnell – who are the four remaining directors of Quinlan Private – have shifted the real estate asset management services currently provided by Quinlan to the new company.

This will allow Quinlan’s directors to extend the share ownership of the business to a further six individuals who are senior members of its management team.

Mr Cremin will be chief executive of the new company, which will manage assets valued at more than €8 billion. It will also be seeking new finance from US institutional investors. A spokesman for the company said it had “a rough target” of “a couple of hundred of million” for the fundraising.

Avestus, which becomes operational at the end of the month, will manage assets in 15 countries and adopt “a particular focus” on the European real estate market, the company said.

Avestus is seeking to take advantage of low prices following the downturn in property markets. New real estate funds targeted at institutional and professional investors are in the pipeline.

A slimmed down Quinlan Partnership will continue to provide taxation, accounting and financial management services to its existing clients.

“The creation of Avestus Capital Partners is a carefully considered response to our assessment of the current and future requirements of our investors and, also, our own desire to extend our leadership team and broaden the ownership base,” Mr Cremin said.

He added that Avestus was “well placed” to take advantage of the investment opportunities “that will inevitably arise as economic growth is re-established and real estate markets recover”.

Mr Quinlan, who founded Quinlan Private more than 20 years ago, first signalled last summer that he intended to step down as chairman and partner. He resigned as a director of the company in November 2009.

Quinlan Private has typically been involved in large-scale syndicated property investments that attract the very wealthy. Among its early high-profile projects was the €1.1 billion purchase of the Savoy hotel group in 2004.

Like most other property interests, some of the group’s investments came under pressure, leading to calls for syndicate members to advance new cash for refinancing purposes.

The Irish Examiner reports that Bord Bia is poised to bring Irish food and drink to a worldwide audience in the days before and after St Patrick’s Day.

It is co-ordinating a series of promotional activities from Paris to Shanghai to highlight the range, quality and supply capability of Irish food and drink.

Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith will travel to Italy to attend a number of trade events in Rome, Milan and Bologna.

Included in his itinerary are visits to the purchasers of Irish live cattle and meetings with Italian multiples.

These include Co-op Italia, the country’s largest retail chain and the market’s single biggest buyer of Irish beef.

Irish food and drink exports to Italy were valued at €244 million for the first nine months of 2009. Total exports in 2008 were valued at €362m.

Bord Bia will also promote Irish beef and speciality foods in Britain, this country’s most important export market, with food and drink exports valued at just under €3.1 billion (44%) in 2009.

On St Patrick’s Day Justice Minister Dermot Ahern will attend a Bord Bia trade lunch in Paris, where 27 of the Brasserie Flo restaurants are running promotions of Irish beef, lamb, oysters, crab, smoked salmon, farmhouse cheese, Guinness, Baileys and Irish whiskey. To reach in excess of 4.5 million French consumers, Bord Bia is also running a number of high profile online campaigns.

France is Ireland’s second most important market with annual exports valued at almost €360m for the first nine months of 2009.

Bord Bia and the Irish ambassador to the Netherlands Mary Whelan will host an Irish drinks tasting session for trade buyers and contacts in Amsterdam tomorrow.

A business networking event will follow.

In conjunction with Tourism Ireland, Bord Bia hosted an Irish lunch in Portugal yesterday and will do likewise in Madrid on Wednesday.

For the first time, the St Patrick’s Day Parade in Moscow will include two Irish floats promoting Kerrygold and Jameson.

Besides a paid subscription , the Financial Times provides the following options:

Free Registered User

See up to 10 articles a month, access email services and portfolio tools

Occasional Reader

Read 1 article a month

Editor's Picks:

China hits at currency ‘protectionism’  -- Asian currencies fell the most in a month after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao rebuffed calls for a stronger yuan, damping expectations that the region’s central banks will allow further appreciation.

Lagarde criticises Berlin policy - - French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde has said Germany's trade surpluses may be unsustainable for its neighbours in the Eurozone.

Dodd set for finance reform bill push  - - Senator Chris Dodd will introduce a new financial regulation reform bill on Monday aimed at strengthening the power of the Fed and weakening Wall Street's ability to influence regulatory policy.

Cost spirals for US victims of cyberfraud - - Reported losses from Internet fraud more than doubled in 2009, with scams that falsely used the FBI's name generating the most complaints, the law enforcement agency have said.

Weak growth in wages limits fall in employment- - UK employment dropped just 1.9% in the 2008-09 recession, compared to 3.4% in the early 90s and 2.4% in the early 1980s

The New York Times reports that with China’s exports soaring, even as other major economies struggle to recover from the recession, evidence is mounting that Beijing is skillfully using inconsistencies in international trade rules to spur its own economy at the expense of others, including the United States.

Seeking to maintain its export dominance, China is engaged in a two-pronged effort: fighting protectionism among its trade partners and holding down the value of its currency.

China vigorously defends its economic policies. On Sunday, Premier Wen Jiabao criticized international pressure on China to let the currency appreciate, calling it “finger pointing.” He said that the renminbi, China’s currency, would be kept “basically stable.”

To maximize its advantage, Beijing is exploiting a fundamental difference between two major international bodies: the World Trade Organization, which wields strict, enforceable penalties for countries that impede trade, and the International Monetary Fund, which acts as a kind of watchdog for global economic policy but has no power over countries like China that do not borrow money from it.

China had a $198 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world last year, with its exports to the United States outpacing imports by more than four to one. Despite that, in the last 12 months, Beijing has filed more cases with the W.T.O.’s powerful trade tribunals in Geneva than any other country complaining about another’s trade practices.

In addition, Beijing has worked to suppress a series of I.M.F. reports since 2007 documenting how the country has substantially undervalued its currency, the renminbi, said three people with detailed knowledge of China’s actions.

China buys dollars and other foreign currencies — worth several hundred billion dollars a year — by selling more of its own currency, which then depresses its value. That intervention helped Chinese exports to surge 46 percent in February compared with a year earlier.

Many prominent academic economists see a basic contradiction in the global system of oversight on trade and currency.

“Many of us would like to see the W.T.O.-style commitments — with people’s feet being held to the fire — at other international agencies, like the I.M.F.,” said Jagdish Bhagwati, a Columbia University economist.

Western countries hoped last year to bring international pressure to bear on China, after years of complaining that Beijing keeps the renminbi artificially low.

An undervalued currency keeps a country’s exports inexpensive in foreign markets while making imports expensive. That makes a trade surplus more likely, reducing unemployment for that country while increasing unemployment in its trading partners.

Last September, President Obama, President Hu Jintao of China and other leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing countries agreed in Pittsburgh that all the G-20 countries would begin sharing their economic plans by November. The goal was to coordinate their exits from stimulus programs and prevent the world from lurching from recession straight into inflation.

The G-20 leaders agreed that the I.M.F. would act as intermediary.

But two people familiar with China’s response said that the Chinese government missed the November deadline and then submitted a vague document containing mostly historical data. These people said that China feared giving ammunition to critics of its currency policies at the monetary fund and beyond. Both people asked for anonymity because of China’s attitudes about its economic policies.

If China is found to be manipulating its currency, it could be a political and economic challenge for the Obama administration. President Obama called on Thursday for China to introduce “a more market-oriented exchange rate.” China’s defiant response keeps the administration in a difficult position.

China is the biggest buyer of Treasury bonds at a time when the United States has record budget deficits and needs China to keep buying those bonds to finance American debt. But the Treasury also faces an April 15 deadline for whether or not to list China as a country that manipulates the value of its currency.

If China is listed, that could embolden members of Congress who are already discussing whether to seek restrictions on Chinese exports to the United States. China would certainly criticize such retaliation as protectionism, leading to a broader deterioration in already strained bilateral relations.

China is starting to describe its currency interventions as stimulus. But unlike extra government spending in the United States and other countries, currency intervention does not expand global demand, but shifts it from other countries to China.

Two closely related scourges played a central role in the collapse of world trade in the 1930s: protectionism and beggar-thy-neighbor currency devaluations. World leaders set up two institutions after World War II, now known as the W.T.O. and the I.M.F., to reduce the risk of another Great Depression.

Unlike its predecessor, which had weak arbitration panels whose rulings could be easily blocked by the losing country, the trade organization has had powerful tribunals since 1995. These tribunals can clear the way for the imposition of sanctions running into the billions of dollars.

Filing a case against another country is the heaviest artillery available to countries in trade disputes. But it also is expensive. Preparing a case and pushing it through a tribunal can easily require millions of dollars in legal expenses, and low-income countries seldom file them.

China joined the W.T.O. in 2001 and in its first seven years filed only three cases. But it has stepped up its pace recently, and has filed four of the 15 cases in the last year: two against the United States, on poultry and tires, and two against the European Union, on steel fasteners and poultry.

The monetary fund has not acquired similar powers to the trade organization.

I.M.F. policies call for it to disclose documents and information on a timely basis, with the deletion only of market-moving information. But under the rules a member country may decide to withhold a report, an organization official said.

China allowed the release of its reports until the monetary fund’s executive board decided in June 2007 that reports should pay more attention to currency policies. China has quietly blocked release of reports on its policies ever since, without providing its specific reasons to the I.M.F.

A person who has seen copies of the most recent report last summer said that the monetary fund staff concluded the renminbi was “substantially undervalued.”

The monetary fund regards a currency as substantially undervalued if it is more than 20 percent below its fair market value.

More than four-fifths of the I.M.F.’s members allow publication of the agency’s annual staff reports on their economies. Countries blocking release are mostly tightly controlled places like Myanmar, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Saudi Arabia, although Brazil has also not released its reports.

China’s central bank did not respond to calls and messages seeking comment.

The main indicator of a country’s intervention in currency markets is its level of foreign reserves. China halted the gradual appreciation of the renminbi against the dollar in July 2008; from June 30, 2008, through Dec. 31 of last year, China’s foreign exchange reserves rose by $590 billion. A small part of the increase reflected interest on bonds, the appreciation of stocks and currency fluctuations.

The NYT also reports that Senate Democrats will press forward this week on legislation to overhaul the nation’s financial system in a critical test of whether Washington can pass reform.

The bill that Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, will introduce on Monday appears written with the goal of forging a consensus that can overcome partisan division, with provisions that incorporate ideas from both Democrats and Republicans.

Among the most recent provisions in the bill to emerge, according to people who have been briefed on the draft, is one that would curb Wall Street’s influence over the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Its president would be appointed by the president of the United States, not by a board that includes representatives of member banks.

Another rule would ban bank officers from sitting on the New York Fed’s board, meaning that Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, would probably have to leave the board.

The legislation would create a consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve to write rules governing mortgages, credit cards and other financial products, said the people, who insisted on anonymity because the details were still in flux.

In a concession to liberals, states’ attorneys general could sue violators of those rules, and the agency would have enforcement powers over large banks, mortgage originators and servicers, and other large lenders.

But in a nod to Republicans, the bill would allow a council of regulators, led by the Treasury, to overturn proposed consumer rules by a two-thirds vote. And although the consumer protection agency would have a director appointed by the president, it would be housed within the Fed, an anathema for consumer advocates.

The bill would also reshape the regulatory role of the Fed. It would be entrusted for the first time with oversight of all of the largest and most interconnected financial companies, even if they are not banks. And it would continue to oversee the largest bank holding companies, those with $50 billion or more in assets — about 35 companies, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

But even as the details were being hammered out Sunday evening, questions remained: can Democrats tap into the vein of populist anger over the excesses of Wall Street and shepherd the bill through, 18 months after the near-collapse of the banking system almost wrecked the economy? And can they avoid getting caught up in the partisan struggle that has held back health-care reform?

For now, after months of stop-and-start bipartisan talks, the Democrats are going it alone on one of the Obama administration’s top priorities.

“This is certainly the farthest thing from ‘take it or leave it,’ ” said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat. “This has been going on for months.”

He said of Republicans: “I’ve just got to ask the question of whether they want to have agreement, and whether they want to have the legislation go forward. I think we do. I know the American public does.”

Republicans have been pushing back, but without trying to seem like allies of big banks or opponents of reform. After Mr. Dodd announced on Tuesday that he planned for a committee vote before Congress recesses on March 26, Republicans lashed out over the timetable.

In a letter last Friday to Mr. Dodd, the 10 Republicans on the Banking Committee said they remained “open to finding common ground” but added that “a markup scheduled in haste would certainly prevent” a bipartisan consensus.

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who had spearheaded Republican talks on the bill, said last week: “If the senators can pass a bill of this substance out of committee in a week — a 1,200-page bill full of substance, that has a real effect on the financial industry — then the states who elect them might as well send robots to the Senate.”

Republicans have also said that the poisonous atmosphere over health care had spread. “Never did I realize that health care would affect financial regulation,” Mr. Corker said.

Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who is ideologically an opposite to Mr. Corker in many respects, agreed that the debate had gotten bogged down.

“Health care has delayed it,” he said. “I’m not happy. I think we should have gotten this done earlier, and it’s why Dodd is right to keep taking this forward. We can’t sit around. It has been too long.”

The bill would also empower the government to seize a company that poses a systemic risk to the financial system; create a Treasury-led council to watch for such risk; create safeguards against excessive risk-taking of the kind that caused the housing crisis; establish an agency to crack down on abusive lending; and revamp the supervision of banks, the governance of corporations and the trading of derivatives.

Perhaps the most hotly debated feature in the legislation has been the new consumer protection agency, and its placement within the Fed is certain to disappoint those angry at the Fed for long failing to protect consumers. “If indeed it’s going to be an independent operation and it’s simply ‘renting space’ from the Fed, the question is, ‘Why the Fed?’ ” said Senator Merkley, who has been an advocate, along with Mr. Reed, on consumer issues.

The bill would revamp governance of public companies, empowering shareholders to have advisory votes on executive pay and to nominate directors through company-issued proxy ballots. Corporations have lobbied vigorously against those provisions, fearing that shareholder activism could spill over from annual meetings into boardrooms.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who has advocated more rights for shareholders, said that the provisions were modest and that corporations opposing them risked being viewed as obstructionist.

“Many of them think that if they push back hard enough, there will be no reform in this area,” he said.

J. Alfred Broaddus Jr., a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, called the proposal “a mixed bag” for the Fed. He applauded the new role for the Fed in overseeing the largest and most complex financial institutions, saying, “That mandate has not been clear in the past.”

But he said it would be a mistake to strip Fed oversight of smaller banks that would be under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

“Those banks are an important link between the Fed and Main Street,” he said.

The bill would also reform the sprawling market for over-the-counter derivatives, making derivatives transactions more transparent. But many companies that use derivatives to hedge, or manage, commercial risk would be exempt, a source of consternation for reformers.

The bill would allow regulators, after a study, to implement elements of a proposal President Obama put forward in January. Named for Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, it would prohibit deposit-taking banks from investing in or owning hedge funds or private equity funds, and from making trades unrelated to their clients’ interest, a practice known as proprietary trading.