Jun 292017

In reporting on the results of an investigation into the conduct of a Victorian registered liquidator operating as a sole practitioner, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has provided a list of procedures which the liquidator failed to carry out.  

The catalogue serves both as a guide to some of the duties that ASIC regards as important, and as a reminder to liquidators.

ASIC logo

Extract from ASIC Media Release 28 June 2017

ASIC’s concerns centred on alleged failures to:

  • conduct pre-appointment independence reviews;
  • send to third parties adequate ‘Day One’ correspondence;
  • properly investigate company affairs;
  • take steps to protect and secure assets in a timely manner;
  • adequately investigate potential illegal phoenix activities and taxation offences of directors and their advisors;
  • make sufficient requests of company officers for books and records;
  • seek prompt assistance from ASIC under the Liquidator Assistance program where the company director or accountant failed to provide adequate books and records;
  • undertake adequate review of voidable transactions, including unfair preferences and uncommercial transactions;
  • lodge complete reports with ASIC;
  • provide creditors with adequate reporting to enable informed assessment of remuneration requests and may have drawn remuneration he was not entitled to; and
  • comply with legal requirements to document work undertaken.

Not each and every one of ASIC’s concerns were found in all of the external administrations reviewed.

ASIC Commissioner John Price said, ‘ASIC continues its focus on registered liquidators who fail to carry out their legal obligations to carry out adequate investigations and report fully to creditors, including in circumstances suggesting pre-appointment illegal activity.

‘Creditors have every right to expect registered liquidators to act independently and competently – especially given their role as a fiduciary. The community needs to have trust and confidence in the administration of insolvent companies.

‘ASIC will continue to review and take action against liquidators whom ASIC believes fall short of meeting legal and professional standards.’

Continue reading »

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Creditors’ voluntary winding up – fundamentals – flowchart

 Checklists and guides, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Law, Insolvency practices  Comments Off on Creditors’ voluntary winding up – fundamentals – flowchart
Jun 242015

(24 June 2015: copyright P J Keenan)

OVERVIEW OF  Creditors’ Voluntary Winding up IN AUSTRALIA

Resolutions by shareholders to wind up the company and to appoint a liquidator
Liquidator takes control of business, property and affairs
Liquidator prepares report of proposed remuneration
Liquidator makes declarations of indemnities, up-front payments and relevant relationships
Directors’ statement about business, property, affairs and financial circumstances of company (Report as to Affairs)
Meeting of creditors (possible committee of inspection; fix remuneration of liquidator; confirm or change liquidator; etc.)
Investigations, realisations of assets and unpaid share capital, recovery of property and (possibly) recovery of compensation Liquidator’s statutory reporting, accounts and returns
Examination and determination of creditors claims Payment of expenses and liquidator’s remuneration
Distribution of residual funds to creditors Annual meeting of creditors or annual report
Final meeting of creditors and shareholders
Deregistration of the company

LAW: Corporations Act 2001, Chapter 5; Corporations Regulations 2001.
PRACTICE STANDARDS: The Third Edition of the Code of Professional Practice of the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association



Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Jun 112015

Tax Checklist for IPs
The Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA), with the help of professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia (PWC), has published a tax guidance checklist to assist insolvency practitioners with identifying tax issues and their obligations on taking insolvency appointments. (Publication date 10 June 2015)

The checklist has 57 questions, alerts, recommendations and tasks concerning income tax, goods and services tax, fringe benefits tax, PAYG withholding, and superannuation guarantee.

ARITA suggests that “Members should note that while ARITA will endeavour to ensure that this guidance is kept up to date, tax is an area subject to constant change and the guidance is current, to the best of our knowledge, as at the date included in the footer of the document. Members should ensure that they are always using the most current version of the guidance”.

The checklist is intended to provide assistance and help to insolvency practitioners in the complicated field of tax compliance. There is no suggestion from ARITA that use of their tax guide is mandatory or necessary or even recommended.

Tax Guide part

Extract from ARITA tax guide

Access to the full guide is available through the ARITA website: CLICK HERE.

Update 14 July 2015:

From ARITA on 13 July:

ARITA has received a number of queries from members regard the relevant PAYG Withholding Rates for dividends paid to employees by external administrators in light of the increase to the Medicare Levy.

On consultation with the ATO, we have been advised that the 2005 Notice of Variation is still current and the 31.5% standard rate still applies and will continue to do so until the notice of variation ceases on 1 October 2015.

The ATO further advises that it is looking to renew the notice but before that occurs will consult with relevant stakeholders, including ARITA and external administrators, about whether changes need to or should be made to the current notice, including any changes to the rates on the notice.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Jan 142015

UPDATED 16/1/2015

Despite directors receiving official admonishments, detailed instructions and threats about the practice of allowing a company to trade whilst insolvent (see, for example, ASIC Regulatory Guide 217), the curse of insolvent trading seems to be growing.

So, in an attempt to reel it in – or perhaps (for the cynical) to reduce the number of reported cases – the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is putting the onus on liquidators to provide “better” information in their statutory reports.


Where liquidators of insolvent companies become aware that a past or present director or other officer of a company may have committed an offence, they are required to make a formal report to ASIC. Several years ago ASIC came up with a form and guidelines spelling out the information it wanted from liquidators before it would take their allegations of offences any further. This change came with the introduction of an electronic means of lodging reports, but also occurred after ASIC had become fed-up with receiving offence reports considered by its investigators to be almost worthless.

The latest version of this offence report form was released on 18 December 2014. The changes that have been drawn to the attention of liquidators by ASIC concern allegations of insolvent trading. The previous version of the form (July 2008) asked little of liquidators regarding this subject: about all it wanted was a “Yes” or “No” on the availability of documentary evidence. But the new version requires far more.

In the insolvency profession the ASIC form is known as EX01. More technically it is Schedule B of Regulatory Guide 16: Report to ASIC under s422, s438D or s533 of the Corporations Act 2001 or for statistical purposes. (Note: This reporting requirement applies not only to liquidators but also to receivers or managing controllers and voluntary administrators. However for simplicity all these classes of external administrators are referred to collectively in this article as liquidators.)


Possible Misconduct – EX01

In EX01 reporting of “insolvent trading” is carried out in the section headed Possible Misconduct.

Here, ASIC asks the liquidator “Are you reporting possible misconduct?”

If the answer is “Yes”, the liquidator is invited to examine Schedule D of ASIC Regulatory Guide 16 to learn “what is likely to constitute a breach of the relevant section, and the evidence needed to prove such a breach”. Schedule D contains over 6,500 words.

There is also a warning “that ASIC may ask you to provide a supplementary report addressing in detail the possible misconduct reported and we may later require further evidence or statements from you for Court purposes”. A description of what is required in the ASIC supplementary report is set out in Schedule C: Supplementary report by receiver or managing controller under s422(2), by voluntary administrator under s438D(2), or by liquidator under s533(2). Schedule C contains about 3,000 words. Liquidators of “assetless companies” are eligible under Regulatory Guide 109 to apply for funding from ASIC for reasonable remuneration and costs in preparing a supplementary report (ASIC form EX03).

If, after considering what is involved in answering “Yes”, the liquidator still thinks the misconduct is worth reporting, or filing a complaint, he or she is directed to the section headed “Criminal Offences”.

Possible Misconduct – Criminal Offences – Insolvent Trading – EX01

Preliminary details of an allegation of insolvent trading – an offence under section 588G(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 – are sought by ASIC in the usual tick-the-box manner.

First the liquidator reports the alleged offence by ticking “Yes” to the following statement:

“In your opinion, one or more directors failed to prevent the company incurring a debt or debts at a time when the director suspected that the company was insolvent or would become insolvent as a result, and the failure to prevent the company incurring the debt(s) was dishonest.”

Having ticked that box, the liquidator is asked “Do you have documentary evidence or other to support your opinion?” and “Are you aware of documentary evidence in the possession of another person that supports this allegation?”

Up to this section the revised form is practically the same as the previous version.

But in the new version, if the liquidator reports a case of insolvent trading and has, or knows of, documentary evidence supporting this conclusion, the liquidator must provide more information by answering several extra questions.

These extra questions concern the period of insolvency, the methods and records used to determine the date of insolvency, the amount of debts incurred, and the reasonable grounds for the director had to suspect insolvency. (The actual questions are set out verbatim below, but the heading are mine.) They are the type of questions that a liquidator, especially one with sufficient funds, ought to consider as a matter of course before reaching an opinion regarding the existence (or non-existence) of insolvent trading.

Effects of changes to insolvent trading sections of EX01

Prior to the recent changes, if ASIC saw a completed EX01 form in which the liquidator had alleged a breach of the insolvent trading laws, and had also answered “yes” to questions about the possession or existence of documentary evidence “or other” to support that opinion, ASIC would have then needed to consider whether to investigate. Its task would likely have entailed obtaining, or trying to obtain, from the liquidator the extra information that is now set out in the latest version of EX01. So, as far as the extra demands in the form are concerned, ASIC would probably argue that liquidators are no greater imposed upon now than they were before.

But regardless of the information ASIC has or could readily obtain, it often decides not to investigate complaints of alleged offences. For many years this inaction has deeply frustrated a lot of liquidators. Many feel that completing an EX01 form is a waste of their time and also, where there are still funds in the insolvent company, a waste of creditors’ money. Unless the revised EX01 results in greater tangible action by ASIC (increased investigations and prosecutions and not just more detailed statistics), making the form more demanding will aggravate these feelings.

It might even see an increase in the non-reporting of insolvent trading offences (see the new question “Reasons for not reporting insolvent trading”), or in “no” being the liquidator’s response when it really should be “yes”.

Extra questions about insolvent trading – new EX01

Period insolvency commenced

Indicate the period, which, in your opinion, the company became unable to pay all its debts as and when they became due and payable:

◻ At appointment ◻ 1 – 3 months prior to appointment ◻ 4 – 9 months prior to appointment ◻ 10 – 15 months prior to appointment ◻ 16 – 24 months prior to appointment ◻ Over 2 years prior to appointment

Method/s of determining date of insolvency

How did you determine the date on which, in your opinion, the company became unable to pay all its debts as and when they became due and payable? (tick one or more):

◻ Cash flow analysis ◻ Trading history analysis ◻ Balance sheet analysis ◻ Informed by director(s) ◻Other, please specify __________________

Records used to determine date of insolvency

Which of the following records, in your possession, did you use to determine the date on which, in your opinion, the company became unable to pay all its debts? (tick one or more):

◻ Cash flow (actual / forecasts / budgets) ◻ Banking records ◻ Aged debtors’ list ◻ Aged creditors’ list ◻ Profit & loss statements ◻ Balance sheets ◻ Other, please specify _______________

Grounds for director to suspect insolvency

If you believe the director had reasonable grounds to suspect the company was insolvent or would become insolvent by incurring the debt (or a reasonable person in a like position would have reason to suspect), please identify on which of the following indicators of insolvency you have based your belief (tick one or more):

◻ Financial statements that disclose a history of serious shortage of working capital, unprofitable trading ◻ Poor or deteriorating cash flow or evidence of dishonoured payments ◻ Difficulties paying debts when they fell due (e.g. evidenced by letters of demand, recovery proceedings, increasing age of accounts payable) ◻ Non-payment of statutory debts (e.g. PAYGW, SGC, GST) ◻ Poor or deteriorating working capital ◻ Increasing difficulties collecting debts ◻ Overdraft and/or other finance facilities at their limit ◻ Evidence of creditors attempting to obtain payment of outstanding debts ◻ Other, please specify ________________

Approximate debt after insolvency

Estimate the approximate amount of debts incurred after the date (in your opinion) of insolvency:

◻ $0 – $250,000 ◻ $250,001 – less than $1 million ◻ $1 million to $5 million ◻ Over $5 million ◻ Unable to determine

Aged list of creditors

Do you have an aged creditors’ list as at (tick one or more):

◻ Date of insolvency ◻ Date of appointment

Dishonesty by director

If the director/directors was dishonest in failing to prevent the company from incurring the debt, indicate what evidence you have available to support this (tick one or more):

◻ Evidence showing that the director/directors had an opportunity to prevent the company from incurring the debt and did not. Such evidence could include: • documents evidencing discussions with the directors, employees and creditors concerning the circumstances surrounding the incurring of particular debts; • correspondence or other documents relating to the circumstances surrounding the incurring of the debt. ◻ Evidence showing that the failure was dishonest (i.e., the director/directors incurred the debt with the knowledge that it would produce adverse consequences, the failure was intentional, wilful or deliberate, and it included an element of deceit or fraud). Such evidence could include: • documents evidencing discussions with the directors, employees and creditors concerning the circumstances surrounding the incurring of particular debts; • correspondence or other documents relating to the circumstances surrounding the incurring of the debt.

Reasons for not reporting insolvent trading

If you did not report insolvent trading (s588(1)-(2) or s588(3)), was it because, in your opinion:

◻ The books and records are insufficient to establish insolvent trading ◻ The company did not incur debts at a time when it was unable to pay its debts (e.g., it ceased to trade) ◻ The directors had reasons to expect the company could pay its debts as they fell due and payable (eg. they obtained independent advice) ◻ Other, please specify ________________

Whether creditor/s are seeking compensation for insolvent trading

Has a creditor commenced, or indicated that they intend to commence, action to recover compensation for loss resulting from insolvent trading?

◻ Yes ◻ No

Possible Misconduct – Breaches of civil obligations – Insolvent Trading – EX01

Insolvent trading may also be a breach of civil penalty sections 588G(1)-(2) of the Act. The revised form EX01 also seeks details of allegations of this nature, by asking about the period of insolvency, the methods and records used to determine the date of insolvency, the amount of debts incurred, and the reasonable grounds for the director had to suspect insolvency. The questions are practically the same as those asked when a criminal offence is alleged (see above). In the previous version of EX01 only three brief questions were posed, which concerned the availability of evidence and the perceived legitimacy of a director’s defence.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Insolvency Services Standard for public accountants to be strengthened

 Checklists and guides, Corporate Insolvency, Ethics, Insolvency practices, Regulation, Standards  Comments Off on Insolvency Services Standard for public accountants to be strengthened
May 282014

Australia’s Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board (ASESB) is revising the professional standard that governs accountants in public practice who perform insolvency services.

APESB logo

On 21 May 2014 ASESB issued an exposure draft of the proposed revisions. It is seeking feedback from insolvency accountants and “other stakeholders” by 4 July 2014.

Chairman of ASESB, Stuart Black, says

“The proposed new requirements to (the professional standard) APES 330 will further strengthen the professional requirements applicable to liquidators and administrators and provide a reference for creditors, regulators and other stakeholders to evaluate and monitor practitioner conduct”

The Media Release states that:

“APESB sets the code of ethics and professional standards by which members of Australia’s three major professional accounting bodies (CPA Australia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia and the Institute of Public Accountants) are required to abide.”

Overview of the proposed changes

The exposure draft  contains the following list of “significant revisions” to the existing APES 330:

  • Revision or addition of the following definitions: Administration, Appointment, Approving Body, Contingent Fee, Controller, Firm, Independence, Insolvency Services, Insolvent Debtor, Member, Member in Public Practice, Professional Activity, Professional Bodies, Professional Services, Professional Standards, Referring Entity, and Related Entity;
  • Removal of the defined terms: Associated Entity, Controlled Entity, and Witness Report;
  • Extending the scope of the standard to include members’ voluntary liquidations with the exception of having to comply with the Independence requirements of the standard;
  • Introduction of a requirement to disclose the source of a referral where the Appointment follows a specific referral;
  • Introduction of a requirement to declare in the DIRRI that no information or advice, beyond that outlined in the DIRRI, was provided;
  • Use of the term “believing” to clarify that it is the Member in Public Practice’s reasons for believing that the Pre-appointment Advice provided or the relationship disclosed does not result in a conflict of interest or duty;
  • Extension of the prohibition on providing Pre-appointment Advice to both an insolvent Entity and its directors; to include an Insolvent Debtor and any corporate Entity associated with that individual;
  • New guidance to encourage disclosure of relationships with Associates of the insolvent Entity that were more than two years prior to the Appointment;
  • Amendment of the current prohibition of consenting to an Appointment where prior business dealings were held to exclude immaterial dealings, or those business dealings that occurred more than two years prior to the Appointment;
  • Additional guidance on what is considered a material business relationship;
  • A new requirement to provide the basis of fee calculations and where relevant the scale
  • Mandating that where fee estimates are provided that these be provided in writing with explanations of the variables that may affect the estimated fee;

  • An obligation on the Member in Public Practice to provide details of Expenses that may be charged from the Administration and the basis of how the Expenses will be charged and recovered by the Firm;

  • Prohibition of Members in Public Practice claiming any pre-appointment disbursements as an Expense;

  • Requirement for consistency between fees charged and those sought for prospective fee approval;
  • The scale of rates used to calculate prospective fees must be that approved by the Approving Body
  •  Where a Member in Public Practice accepts an Appointment with another Member, all Members are equally responsible for all decisions on the Appointment; 

  • Payments received for the costs of an Administration from third parties must be disclosed to the Approving Body and approved (other than in an Appointment as a Controller);
  •  Detailed requirements and guidance on Expert Witness obligations has been replaced by referring Members in Public Practice to APES 215 Forensic Accounting Services; and
  •  New requirements for a Member in Public Practice to use appropriate procedures to ensure statutory timeframes are met in a timely manner.


Deadline for comments


The deadline for stakeholder comments is 4 July 2014. APESB says it welcomes comments from respondents on any matters in the exposure draft (ED 01/14).

Comments should be addressed to:
The Chairman, Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board Limited
Level 7, 600 Bourke Street, MELBOURNE, VIC, 3000.

A copy of each submission will be placed on public record on the APESB website. http://www.apesb.org.au/apesb-exposure-drafts-open-for-comment.


Sources and Links

APESB Media Release 21 May 2014

APESB At A Glance, APES 330 Insolvency Services ED, May 2014

Proposed Standard: apes 330 Insolvency Services


The Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association (ARITA) also has an extensive Code of Professional Practice.  That governs members of ARITA, but has also been accepted by some judges in hearings concerning misconduct as a guide to the professional standards expected of all insolvency practitioners.  Accordingly, the changes by the accounting bodies to APES 330 may not make much real difference to practice standards. But of course the accounting bodies must have their own rules in place.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

IPA guide: acceptable creditor resolutions for external administrators seeking future remuneration encompassing increases in hourly rates.

 Checklists and guides, Corporate Insolvency, court decisions, Insolvency Law, Insolvency practices  Comments Off on IPA guide: acceptable creditor resolutions for external administrators seeking future remuneration encompassing increases in hourly rates.
Dec 182013

Several years ago an external administrator (Paul Gidley) went to the Federal Court for advice on the validity of resolutions passed approving his remuneration prospectively (i.e. ahead of the work being performed).  It was a treated as test case, and in it he was supported by the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPA) and opposed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The judgment of Justice Gyles favoured the external administrator and opened the way for liquidators and other external administrators to have their remuneration “fixed by reference to a formula based upon time, provided that the formula is objective enough to satisfy the test laid down by the High Court ….”  He decided that “the resolutions in question in this case are capable of objective application. All of the necessary elements can be objectively identified. The person doing the work, that person’s category and the period spent are all the elements required. The sum can be calculated or ascertained definitely….” (Gidley re: Aliance Motor Body Pty Limited [2006] FCA 102).

Now the IPAA has drafted two examples of alternative resolutions that it believes meet the test in situations where the external administrator seeks prospective (future) remuneration that allows for the increase of hourly rates. See IPAA release 17 December 2013: Prospective remuneration approval – Increase in hourly rates

The sample resolutions are:

“That the future remuneration of the [appointee type] from [date] is determined at a sum equal to the costs of time spent by the [appointee type] and their partners and staff, calculated at the hourly rates as detailed in the report to creditors of [date] that will be increased at a rate of X% at 1 July each year, up to a capped amount of $[capped amount], exclusive of GST, and that the [appointee type] can draw the remuneration on a monthly basis or as required.”


“That the future remuneration of the [appointee type] from [date] is determined at a sum equal to the costs of time spent by the [appointee type] and their partners and staff, calculated at the hourly rates as detailed in the report to creditors of [date] that will be increased in accordance with the June quarter Consumer Price Index (all groups) at1 July each year, up to a capped amount of $[capped amount], exclusive of GST, and that the [appointee type] can draw the remuneration on a monthly basis or as required.”

In providing these examples the IPAA says:

 “The Third Edition of the IPA Code of Professional Practice (effective from 1 January 2014) provides further clarification that hourly rates can only be increased where an objective formula is approved by creditors as part of the resolution …In practice this means that, should a practitioner wish to adjust their hourly rates, they must include a definitive formula in the resolution – a resolution which refers to an increase “from time to time” or similar is not acceptable.  The IPA also considers that a resolution that refers to increases of “up to X%” does not meet the definitive requirements of the Gidley decision.  Should practitioners wish to be able to increase rates during the period of a prospective fee approval, they should consider resolutions which refer to increases of X%pa or in accordance with CPI. “

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Oct 292013

The Australian Insolvency Practitioners Association (IPA) today released the third edition of its Code of Professional Practice, together with a new Explanatory Memorandum, a document showing all changes, and four templates for insolvency practitioners to use as guides when preparing such documents for creditors.

IPA announcement

From IPA website, www.ipaa.com.au

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Oct 162013

Before accepting an appointment as liquidator or administrator of an insolvent company the insolvency practitioner (IP) must evaluate his or her relationships with the company and with those who are involved or have an interest in its affairs. In the following decision chart and accompanying notes I suggest that there are three main steps in the evaluation process.

Step 1 is fairly simple: the task is to ensure that the IP is not prohibited or disqualified from acting by the express laws on disqualification for reason of a specific connection that are contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act), i.e., sections 448C and 532.

Step 2 may be far more difficult. It involves looking out for other relationships which the Act deems to be, prima facie, of interest to creditors of the company (sections 60, 436DA, 449CA and 506A). If such a relationship exists, the IP must evaluate whether the relationship is “relevant”. Unless such a relationship is “trivial”, it will be “relevant”.

If the IP is of the view that there are no relevant relationship, he or she may accept appointment. (His or her view that there are no relevant relationships must be declared in writing in the Declaration of Relevant Relationships presented to creditors (section 60)).

Step 3 in the evaluation process is required if the IP considers that there is a relevant relationship. Relevant relationships need to be evaluated to see whether they give rise to, or are likely to give rise to, a conflict of interest or a conflict of duty for the IP in the performance of his or her obligations. This is a complex issue, which is expanded upon in Note 3.

If the IP forms the view that because of a relevant relationship he or she has or is likely to have a conflict of interest or a conflict of duty, he or she must decline to take the appointment.

On the other hand, if the IP’s view is that there is no such conflict, the IP must – in the written Declaration of Relevant Relationships – give details of the relationship and explain why he or she believes that it does not and will not give rise to a conflict of interest or a conflict of duty.

ThreatsToIndependence_Evaluation Chart_samll


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Sep 182013

In continuing to develop its Code of Professional Practice, the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPAA) released a draft third edition on 6 September 2013.

The Code sets guidelines for the behaviour and practices of trustees appointed under the Bankruptcy Act and liquidators and other types of external administrators appointed under the Corporations Act.

The draft is open for comment until 27 September 2013, and the IPAA hopes that the new version will take effect from 1 January 2014.

Those invited by the IPAA to comment are “members, regulators, government agencies and other stakeholders” – which presumably includes financiers, creditors, insolvent debtors, company directors and shareholders. In fact, the IPAA’s announcement is headed “public consultation“.

The full text of the IPAA’s Explanatory Memorandum – which provides “an explanation of the major changes that have been made to the Code in the development of the third edition” – is reproduced below.


From: Kim Arnold (IPAA)
Date: 6 September 2013
Subject: Explanatory Memorandum Draft Third edition of the Code 


This document summarises the more significant changes to the Code and discusses the reasons for the changes. It also addresses some of the concerns arising out of the first round of consultation with the IPA’s Insolvency Specialist Working Group (ISWG), National Board and State Committees.  

Disclosure of referrers (6.6)

A requirement has been added to the Code requiring a Practitioner to disclose the source of a referral in the DIRRI where the appointment follows a specific referral.  

During the first round of consultation, concerns were raised about this new requirement, specifically around commercial sensitivity of this information and the impact this may have on the reputation of the referral source. 

It is our view that the disclosure of the referral source of an appointment is important for the following reasons: 

• Creditors have a right to know how the appointment came about and part of that process is who referred the appointment maker (directors, debtor) to the practitioner; 

• It may be relevant to creditors if the referral source is subsequently engaged to provide services in the administration and subsequently paid by the administration; 

• We have received numerous complaints about the practices of a number of referral agencies, however as their personnel are not members of the IPA (nor registered liquidators or registered trustees) we are unable to take any action in respect of these complaints. The disclosure of the referral source may assist the IPA in managing this industry issue. 

Disclosure of remuneration pre-appointment (6.13) 

A section has been added to the Code requiring Practitioners to provide certain information about remuneration to directors/debtor prior to a director/debtor appointment (not court or controller appointments). This is not a requirement to provide a quote or estimate, but if a quote or estimate is provided, it will need to be in writing. 

We have received a number of complaints from directors stating that they were told one thing by a Practitioner prior to the appointment and the actual fees sought/drawn in the administration were completely different. As there is usually no documentary evidence regarding what was told to the director prior to the appointment, it is difficult for the Practitioner to be able to verify what information was provided. By providing information about remuneration in writing to the directors/debtor, the Practitioner will receive protection from misinterpretation and will be able to provide evidence of the information provided in the event of a subsequent complaint. 

We have also received colloquial evidence from a practitioner that some practitioners are providing directors/debtors will very low fixed fee estimates in order to obtain appointments and subsequently charging remuneration at hourly rates and having that approved by creditors. 

Practitioners will also be required to disclose any estimates or quotes provided to directors/debtors prior to appointment in the initial remuneration advice sent to creditors. 

We have developed a template for use by Practitioners at 23.2.3 

Disclosure of basis of and actual disbursements (15.3.2) 

Although creditors do not have the right to approve disbursements, they do have the right to understand on what basis disbursements are recovered and the quantum of disbursements paid to the Practitioner’s firm. 

To provide greater clarity to creditors on the basis on which internal disbursements (eg internal non-professional fee expenses) are recovered , Practitioners will be required to disclose the basis in the initial advice to creditors regarding remuneration. This requirement has been built into the template at 23.2.1. 

To assist creditors with understanding what disbursements have actually been paid to the Practitioner, the following information must now be included in the remuneration approval report: 

• general information on the different classes of disbursements; 

• a declaration that the disbursements were necessary and proper; 

• in relation to disbursements paid to the Firm, whether directly or in reimbursement of a payment to a third party: 

– who the disbursement was paid to; 

– what the disbursement was for; 

– the quantity and rate (only for internal disbursements); and 

– the amount paid; and 

• details of the basis of any internal disbursements that will be charged to the Administration in the future (e.g. Page rate for photocopying done internally). 

Note that payments direct to third parties by the Administration only need to be clearly included in the receipts and payments. 

These requirements have been built into the report template at 23.2.2. 

Payment of remuneration by secured creditors in non-controller appointments (15.5.5) 

The Code now makes clear that any payments by secured creditors for the realisation of secured assets, in any appointments other than controller appointments, must be disclosed to the approving body and approved in the same way as other remuneration. 

In our view, this is a codification of the law. 

Section 449E in respect of VA is clear that an administrator is only entitled to remuneration as is determined by agreement with the COI, resolution of creditors or the Court. 

Similarly, section 473 for liquidators states that the liquidator is entitled to receive such remuneration as is determined by agreement between the liquidator and COI, resolution of creditors or the Court. 

In a bankruptcy, remuneration is fixed under section 162 by resolution of creditors or by the COI. A trustee may also make an application to the Inspector General. Under s 165, a trustee is not able to make an arrangement for receiving from any person any remuneration beyond the remuneration fixed in accordance with the Act. 

In our view, it is clear that there is a statutory requirement for proper approval to be obtained to draw any remuneration in any such appointments. 

There was resistance to this change to the Code in the first round of consultation. It has been suggested that the Practitioner would be acting as the agent of the secured creditor and thus acting outside the VA/liquidation/bankruptcy. In our view, acting as agent of the secured creditor would be a conflict that would prevent the continuation of the underlying insolvency appointment. ASIC has similar concerns regarding conflict issues. 

Furthermore, we envisage that the administrator/liquidator/trustee would be using the ABN, GST registration and insurance coverage of the underlying administration. 

The proper view, in our opinion, is that the VA/liquidator/trustee is selling those assets in their role as VA/liquidator/trustee and remitting the proceeds to the secured creditor (subject to any prior ranking creditor, for example section 561 in a liquidation). The VA/liquidator/trustee may withhold sufficient funds to meet the cost of selling those assets, but that money cannot actually be drawn as remuneration until approval is obtained from the approving body. 

Identity of directors (20.2) 

There is a new requirement in the Code for Practitioners to take appropriate steps to satisfy themselves of the identity of directors or a debtor prior to accepting an appointment where the appointment is being made by the directors or a debtor. 

The requirement is to take appropriate steps, which means that the Practitioner should use professional judgement to determine what is appropriate in the circumstances. 

This requirement is consistent with AFSA’s (previously ITSA) requirement to verify identity when lodging a debtor’s petition. 

Joint appointments (20.3) 

General guidance has been added to the Code stating that joint and several appointments: 

• should be taken with the knowledge that all Appointees are equally responsible for all decisions made on joint and several appointments, and

• the firm should have in place policies and procedures to ensure that all appointees are knowledgeable about the conduct of the administration, even if one appointee is leading the conduct of the administration. 

This is general guidance following a spate of disciplinary action against co-appointees that were not the lead appointee on the administration.


For the purpose of facilitating comment the IPAA has made this Explanatory Memorandum and the following documents publicly available free of charge from its website:

To see the notice issued by the IPAA click HERE.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When should liquidators apply to court for approval and directions?

 Checklists and guides, Industry People, Insolvency practices, Legal opinion, Regulation  Comments Off on When should liquidators apply to court for approval and directions?
Sep 212011

 Michael J Galvin, barrister and insolvency law expert from Melbourne, has kindly contributed the following article for insolvency practitioners on applications for Court approval and directions, and the powers of administrators and liquidators.


 Applications for Court approval and directions

In addition to cases where liquidators and administrators are obliged to seek directions (see later in this paper), there are many circumstances where it may be thought desirable to apply for Court approval.  

This will be so where the liquidator or the administrator is uncertain as to the course he or she should adopt in relation to a matter (e.g. Re Mento Developments (2009) 73 ACSR 622).  It is particularly so where it is anticipated that a decision is likely to be controversial or where there is likely to be a complaint about a transaction which a liquidator or administrator proposes entering into, or has entered into (e.g. see Handberg (in his capacity as liquidator of S & D International Pty Ltd) (in liq) v MIG Property Services Pty Ltd (2010) 79 ACSR 373; Bufalo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2011] FCAFC 111).

Section 479(4) of the Corporations Act 2001 provides that a liquidator may apply to the Court for directions regarding any matter arising in the winding up.  Section 511 makes similar provision for liquidators in creditors’ voluntary windings up, including liquidations which have ensued from a voluntary administration. Whilst they are expressed in different terms, it has been held that there is no material difference between the provisions.

Section 447D gives the Court power to give directions to administrators, and deed administrators, about matters arising in connection with the performance or exercise of their functions and powers.

Sections 479(4), 511 and 447D have a common pedigree.  The history of s 479(4) and its relationship to applications by trustees (particularly of deceased estates) for judicial advice were considered in detail by McClelland J. in GB Nathan & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) (1991) 24674 (see also Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc (2008) 249 ALR 250; see also Bufalo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2011] FCAFC 111 (Mansfield, Besanko and Flick JJ).

The primary purpose of the court’s power to give judicial advice is the protection of those appointed by the Court to administer estates from allegations that they have acted improperly (Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd (1998) 1 Qd R 84 at 93).  It is also aimed at protecting the interests of trusts (Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc at [71] & [72]).

That is not to say that the court will grant a direction or approval whenever sought (Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd at 92).  It is important that the proposed direction:

  • relates to the manner in which the liquidator should act in carrying out the liquidator’s functions; and
  • will not adversely affect the legal rights or interests of other persons (or allow the liquidator to do so with impunity) (Southern Cross Airlines Holdings Ltd at 92).

However, an application for directions may be readily converted to an adversarial proceeding where the circumstances warrant it (Re Mento Developments (2009) 73 ACSR 622).

The power to give judicial advice extends to whether or not a liquidator is justified in prosecuting or defending proceedings (particularly having regard to the associated costs of doing so) (Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc at [71] & [72]).

The court may exercise its power to give judicial advice even with respect to and the liquidator’s proposal to enter into a commercial arrangement (Re Timbercorp Securities Ltd (in liq) (2009) 74 ACSR 626).


A liquidator is entitled to seek directions on the administration of the winding up even though the issue about which he seeks a direction may be or become an adversarial issue in other proceedings;

The direction or advice is to be directed to advising the liquidator on whether or not he or she is justified in conduct and winding up in a certain way and not deciding disputes between competing parties;

The direction or advice should not seek to resolve an issue between competing parties, but the fact that the advice may tend to foreclose an issue in other disputed proceedings is not of special significance in the court exercising its discretion to give private advice to the liquidator; and

Where a liquidator seeks advice on an issue which may be contested between competing parties, the court should be alert to not going further than is necessary to give the advice sought (Re Mento Developments (2009) 73 ACSR 622 at [49]).

It is common, for the applicant liquidator to nominate willing parties to act as contradictors in the proceeding. These are usually persons, such as creditors or classes of creditors, who have an interest in the outcome of the application. The identification of such persons is helpful because they are usually able to promote counter arguments that assist the Court in resolving the relevant issue or issues. The costs of such persons are usually agreed in advance to be met out of the assets of the liquidation.

Opinions differ as to the appropriate wording of a direction. Some judges prefer to give a direction that a liquidator is “justified” in taking a particular action. Others prefer to direct that the liquidator would be acting “reasonable” were he or she to adopt a particular course.

As to the equivalent law governing trustees in bankruptcy, see Bufalo v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2011] FCAFC 111.

 When is Court/creditor approval required

A. Liquidators

As to liquidators’ powers generally, see s 477 Corporations Act 2001.

Liquidators are prohibited from doing any of the following unless they have the approval of the Court (Federal or Supreme), the approval of the committee of inspection (if there is one) or a resolution of creditors:

  • compromise a debt due to the company which is greater than $100,000 (s 477(2A));
  • enter into an agreement on the company’s behalf (such as a lease or a charge) which may remain on foot or involve the performance of obligations beyond three months from the date of the agreement (s 477(2B)).

Quaere whether settlement of a claim against a director for insolvent trading, which according to the terms of s 459M is a debt due to the company, requires Court or creditor approval.

A liquidator in a creditors’ voluntary winding up is prohibited from doing any of the following without the leave of the Court, unless and until the initial meeting of creditors under s 497 has been held:

  • pay any class of creditors in full (subjection to s 556) (ss 477(4) and 477(l)(b);
  • compromise or make any arrangement with creditors, or persons claiming to be creditors, of the company, or whereby the company may be rendered liable (s 477(4) and s 477(l)(c)); and
  • do anything necessary for the winding up of the company and distributing its property (ss 477(4) and 477(2)(m)).

The exercise by a liquidator of the powers conferred by s 477 is always subject to the control of the Court. Any creditor or contributory, or ASIC, may apply to the Court with respect to any exercise, or proposed exercise, of any of those powers (s 477(6); note also the power of the Court to review the actions, decisions and omissions of liquidators under s 1321).

A liquidator must have regard to any directions given by resolution of the creditors or by the committee of inspection. A direction by the former will override a direction by the latter (s 479(1)). The liquidator may convene meetings of creditors to ascertain their wishes, and is obliged to convene a meeting if required to do so by creditors having one tenth of the company’s debt (s 479(4)).

B. Administrators

While a company is under administration, the administrator:

  • has control of the company’s business, property and affairs;
  • may carryon the company’s business and manage its property and affairs;
  • may terminate or dispose of all or part of the business, and may dispose of any of the property; and
  • may perform any function, and exercise any power, that the company or any of its officers could perform or exercise if the company were not under administration (s 437A(l)).

The administrator has additional powers:

  • to remove a director from office;
  • to appoint a director;
  • to execute a document, bring or defend proceedings, or do anything else, in the company’s name and on its behalf; and
  • whatever else is necessary to the purposes of part 5.3A (s 442A).

A transfer of shares in a company during administration is void, unless:

  • the administrator has given written and unconditional consent to the transfer;
  • the administrator gives written consent and any conditions have been satisfied; or
  • the Court authorises the transfer (s 437F(1)).

An administrator’s consent to a transfer of shares is subject to review by the Court (s 437F(5) and (6). The Court will only authorise the transfer under s 437F(l)(c) if it is satisfied the transfer is in the best interests of the company’s creditors as a whole.

An administrator is prohibited from disposing of property subject to a charge, or property used by the company but owned by someone else (e.g. property leased by the company), unless:

  • the disposal is in the ordinary course of business;
  • the charge or owner consents; or
  • the administrator obtains the leave of the Court (s 442C).

The Court will only grant leave if it is satisfied that the chargee’s or owner’s rights are adequately protected (s 442C(3».

As in the case of liquidators, the actions, decisions and omissions of administrators, and deed administrators, are subjection to review by the Court (s 1321).

Author: Michael J Galvin 5 September 2011

Michael’s Profile

 From the date of his admission in 1989 until commencing the Readers’ Course earlier in 1999, Michael worked with Gadens Lawyers, formerly J M Smith & Emmerton.  He became an associate in 1991 and then a partner in 1994.  He conducted an extensive insolvency practice as a solicitor for ten years advising liquidators, receivers, voluntary administrators, company directors, debtors, creditors, trustees and the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia.  He appeared in a variety of proceedings as a solicitor advocate including commercial hearings and trials in the Magistrates’, County, Supreme and Federal Courts and public examinations under the Corporations Law and Bankruptcy Act. Michael is co-author of the recently published Butterworth’s loose-leaf service “Bankruptcy Law and Practice”.

Telephone: (03) 9225 8235 Secretary: (03) 9225 6059 Chambers: Lonsdale Chambers, Level 5, 530 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne Vic 3000.  Clerk: Michael Green (03) 9225 7222.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email