"We tell ourselves we're a nation of entrepreneurs, " he told the Sunday Tribune. "But while I respect the principle behind the rules to strike off company directors, I believe the process needs to be reformed." Hyland said he did not believe that the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, Paul Appleby, had any choice under the present system but to force Hyland and former directors into an expensive series of court hearings. But he added that he believed "a period of review and reflection" should now follow. He called for the ODCE to initiate consultations with the business community to discuss reforms of a process he said was "too long, completely irrational" and "anti-business".

Hyland said that in his yet to be published judgement, Mr Justice Michael Hanna singled him out for his utter propriety and boldness in attempting to rescue a business that would have otherwise folded. After an extended negotiating process, Hyland . . . the magazine's former sales director . . . purchased the magazine on 15January 2002. Despite making 25% of the staff redundant in the first three days and struggling to reach new agreements with the Revenue Commissioners and other creditors, the magazine collapsed six weeks later with more than 1m in debts. Hyland transferred the title to a different company. The court has now ruled that the firm did not collapse due to any actions on the part of the directors.

Hyland said his company now has 40 employees, turned over 5m last year, is profitable and is planning an expansion to the US in July. Eamon McHale, head of insolvency at the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, rejected the suggestion that stepped-up enforcement since 2001 has resulted in an anti-business climate. Some 700 directors are currently restricted, up from 50 in 2001. Just 20% of cases wind up going to court, he said.

McHale also said that the length of the case involving Hyland was exceptional. The normal process, he said, would be a six-month investigation from the liquidator followed by five months from the report. "Probably in that case more time was requested, " said McHale, though he stressed that because the ODCE was not a direct party to the case he could not comment directly. He also said that the recommendations of the office have evolved over the past six years.