Oct 132010
 

The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) has recommended that a  taskforce be established “to identify personal and corporate  insolvency provisions and processes that could be aligned.  The case for making one regulator responsible for both areas of insolvency law should also be examined.”

This recommendation is made in the APC’s report, titled “Annual Review of Regulatory Burdens on Business: Business and Consumer Services Sector” , released yesterday.

For the APC’s discussion and recommendation concerning insolvency practitioners, see Chapter 4 – Regulatory barriers for occupations, Part 4.5, pages 169 to 176.

(The full report on the numerous business sectors examined can be found here.)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Early destruction of books by liquidator

 Forms, Records Management, Regulation, Retention and Disposal  Comments Off on Early destruction of books by liquidator
Oct 082010
 

With the necessary approval, a liquidator may legally destroy his or her records of a winding up soon after it is finalised.  The same is true of books and records of the liquidated company. (See section 542 of the Corporations Act 2001 “the Act”.)

In the case of a creditors’ voluntary winding up approval must be obtained from creditors and then the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).  In a winding up by the Court approval must be obtained from the Court.

The provisions in the Act for early destruction make sense.  Or at least they do in so far as they pertain to the books and records of the liquidated company that exist at the commencement of the winding up.   At that stage a company may have a vast collection of  books and records.  Without  special laws a liquidator would be required to store them for 5 years after the company ceased to exist.  Multiply this cost by the many administrations that a liquidator may have and the sum becomes exorbitant, and needlessly so.

But in the case of  books and records created subsequent to commencement of the winding up,  the argument for early destruction is much weaker, particularly now that society seems to be demanding that liquidators be more accountable and more closely supervised.  (For example, see the Australian Senate Committee Report: “The regulation, registration and remuneration of insolvency practitioners in Australia: the case for a new framework“, September 2010.)

(This aspect of the law in relation to retaining books is discussed in my earlier article headed: “Retaining books and records post liquidation”.)

Nonetheless, the main purpose of this article is to draw the attention of liquidators to an application form that I have prepared for use in applying for early destruction of books in a creditors’ voluntary liquidation. (There is no statutory form for an application.)

My standard form may be found at:

 www.insolvencyresources.com.au/CvoliqPractPack.htm

Before applying to ASIC  a resolution approving/directing the early destruction must be passed by creditors, either through the committee of inspection – if there is one – or at a meeting of creditors.  This is usually a standard item on the agenda at  the first or second meeting.

ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 81 (RG 81) sets out what information the application must contain. A little less information is required if the application is made after the company is deregistered.  But an application can be made before deregistration and even up to 2 months before the final meeting of members and creditors.

Essentially the application requires the liquidator to supply a copy of the committee or creditors’ resolution and to state that:

  • no litigation by or against the liquidator or the company is in process,  is contemplated or is expected;
  • no one has asked for access to the books;
  • no circumstances exist in relation to the company or an associate (as defined in section 11 of the Act) which may result in the books being required within 5 years of the company’s deregistration;
  • the liquidator has lodged his or her investigation report and received a “no further action” type clearance from ASIC;
  • the liquidator has satisfied all his or her lodging and reporting requirements; and
  • there are insufficient funds in the liquidation to meet the costs of storing the books for 5 years.

Presumably if there are circumstances  which exist in relation to the company or an associate which may result in the books being required within 5 years of the company’s deregistration, a liquidator who, nevertheless, wants permission to destroy the books would have to present a submission to ASIC for its consideration.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Code of conduct for liquidators being revised

 Australian Senate 2009-2010, Ethics, Official Inquiries, Regulation, Standards  Comments Off on Code of conduct for liquidators being revised
Sep 302010
 

Due to “various factors”, including the Senate Inquiry into Liquidators and Administrators, the Australian association of  insolvency practitioners has drafted changes to its code of conduct.

On 29 September 2010 the latest version of the code (Version 2) was released to members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPA) and made available to the public via its website: http://www.ipaa.com.au

Visitors to the site can view the existing Code of Professional Practice (COPP) — which is Version 1,  issued in May 2008 — and a version of the proposed new code marked up for changes between versions 1 and 2.

Typically such codes  set out the ethical principles, values, behaviours and standards of practice expected of members

The IPA says that its COPP is the standard for professional conduct in the insolvency profession.  It says that: “The primary purposes of the COPP are to educate IPA members as to their professional responsibilities; and provide a reference for stakeholders against which they can gauge the conduct of Practitioners”.

IPA members have until  20 October 2010 to provide feedback or raise any concerns in respect of the draft Version 2.  The IPA expects that Version 2 will be in operation prior to the end of 2010.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Corporate insolvency regulator is “overburdened” says Senate Committee.

 Australian Senate 2009-2010, Official Inquiries, Regulation  Comments Off on Corporate insolvency regulator is “overburdened” says Senate Committee.
Sep 142010
 

In its report released today (14 September 2010) the  Australian Senate Committee that was set up to inquire into liquidators and administrators  has recommended that  the corporate insolvency  arm of  ASIC  be  transferred  to  ITSA  to  form  the  Australian  Insolvency  Practitioners Authority (AIPA).

In discussing this recommendation (one of many in its 190 page report) the Committee said:

“.. (we have)  heard a range of evidence concerning  the  role  and  competence  of  the  Australian  Securities  and  Investments Commission  (ASIC),  the  Companies  and  Liquidators  Disciplinary  Board  (CALDB) and  the  Insolvency  Practitioners  Association  of  Australia  (IPAA).  The  criticism  of ASIC’s approach to monitoring the insolvency industry as outlined in chapter 6 of this report is of particular concern for the committee”. 

“ASIC  has  consistently  claimed  that  it  has  the  resources  to  fulfil  its  current responsibilities  in  insolvency  matters.   It  has  also  admitted  that  there  are  areas  in which it could improve.  Taken together, these comments suggest that ASIC believes it  can  address  these  areas  without  more  funding,  provided  its  responsibilities  in insolvency are not increased.”

“However,  the  committee  believes  that  regardless  of  funding,  ASIC  is overburdened. The oversight of insolvency practitioners is just one of 13 ‘stakeholder teams’  within  ASIC’s  organizational  structure.   Its  2008–09  Annual  Report  lists  six strategic  priorities,  none  of  which  relate  directly  to  corporate  insolvency  matters.  Understandably,  the  strategic  priority  of  managing  the  domestic  and  international implications  of  the Global  Financial  Crisis  has  consumed  much  of  ASIC’s time  and resources.”

“The  committee  believes  that  corporate  insolvency  in  Australia  needs  more priority  and  prominence  in  the  regulatory  framework.  This  will  not  be  achieved through more funding and responsibilities for the same overburdened agency. Rather, …  the  committee  argues  that  there  is  a  need  to  combine  the regulation of personal bankruptcy and corporate insolvency under the one body. This would be best achieved by transferring ASIC’s corporate insolvency responsibilities to within  the  Insolvency and  Trustee Service Australia (ITSA).  The new  agency  would therefore be under the Attorney-General’s portfolio.”

For a copy of the full report go to: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/liquidators_09/report/report.pdf

END OF POST

To comment go to Read More

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Sep 132010
 

Statistics produced by Australia’s corporate regulator reveal that it treats only 11% of  the unfavourable  statutory reports it receives from insolvency practitioners  as serious enough to warrant any action.

Insolvency practitioners must lodge a report with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) when they suspect an offence under any Australian law relating to the company to which they are appointed.

In one of ASIC’s submissions to the Senate Committee’s inquiry into liquidators and administrators (see page 76 of the March 2010 submission), there is a chart showing the number of such reports – described as “reports of alleged misconduct or suspicious activity” –  received in the financial  years 2007, 2008 and 2009, and in the 6 months to December 2009.

See the copy of ASIC’s chart at the end of this article.

[All public submissions to the Committee may be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/liquidators_09/submissions.htm ]

The chart in ASIC’s first submission reveals that during the period 1/7/2006 to 31/12/2009 ASIC received 20,225 “inital” statutory reports alleging misconduct or suspicious activity.  Of those only 2,918 (14.4%) were flagged or  escalated for further consideration.

In the 06/07 and 07/08 financial years the number of reports escalated equalled 17%.  But in the 08/09 financial year and the half year to December 2009,  that figure dropped to 11%.

Why are 89% of reports by liquidators and administrators not acted upon?  There would be several reasons.  Isn’t the public entitled to know what those reasons are and how many cases there are in each category?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email