ASIC – Page 4 – ░░░ INSOLVENCY INTERFACE

Insolvency statistics: Reports to corporate regulator by liquidators: trend in insolvency deficiencies

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency practices, Insolvency Statistics, Regulation Comments Off

Nov 252013

This chart, prepared exclusively for this blog, shows the trend in the number of Schedule B investigation reports filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) by external administrators of insolvent corporations from 2007/08 to 2012/13 and the trend in the estimated minimum deficiency that all these corporations, taken together, are said to have incurred.

The primary data has been published by ASIC in annual reports titled, “Insolvency statistics: External administrators’ reports”.

My analysis shows that during 2012/13 the external administrators who filed Schedule B reports electronically reported deficiencies which, taken together, total an estimated minimum of $7.8 billion spread over 9,254 companies. This compares with deficiencies totalling at least $7.3 billion spread over 10,074 companies in 2011/12, and deficiencies totalling at least $6.1 billion spread over 8,054 companies in 2010/11. A deficiency is the amount by which liabilities owing by a company exceeds the value of its assets. In other words, it is the amount that creditors are expected to lose.

When completing the initial external administrator report (Schedule B), the external administrator selects from a predetermined set of options for qualitative questions, and ranges for quantitative questions. There are over 30 questions on the form.

One of those questions requires the external administrator to make an estimate of the company’s deficiency and report the result by selecting the range into which it falls. For this question there are seven ranges specified by ASIC. All ranges (except the top) have both minimum and maximum amounts. For the purposes of this analysis I have taken a conservative approach and used the bottom of the range. For example, where 2,473 companies are reported to have an estimated deficiencies in the range $50,001 to $250,000, I have used a total deficiency for that range of $123,652,473, i.e., 2,473 by $50,001. The same principal has been applied throughout my calculations. The total estimated deficiency in this chart is, therefore, the minimum or bottom of the range.

Of its compilation reports – the latest of which is Report 372 – ASIC says they have been “compiled from the estimates and opinions contained in statutory reports lodged with ASIC by liquidators, receivers and voluntary administrators (external administrators’ reports) in the format of Schedule B to Regulatory Guide 16 External administrators: Reporting and lodging (RG 16) (Schedule B report).”

In its Disclaimer ASIC says: “In compiling the statistics in this report, ASIC has relied on the information in the external administrators’ reports lodged electronically with ASIC. Other than as discussed in Section B of this report, ASIC has not verified or sought to confirm the accuracy of any information in the external administrators’ reports lodged electronically. Accordingly, the statistics in this report cannot be construed or relied on as representing a complete and accurate depiction or statement about the matters or events to which the statistics relate.”

Targeting phoenix activity: union asks Senate for tougher laws and action

ASIC, Australian Senate 2013-14, Corporate Insolvency, Employee Entitlements, Official Inquiries, Phoenix company activity, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Oct 252013

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) has focused its recent submission to the inquiry by the Australian Senate into “The performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission” on the issue of phoenix company activity.

The AMWU claims that “ASIC’s failure to adequately hold directors to account has cost millions of dollars worth of unpaid entitlements for employees nationwide. The time is now for action to be taken, impunity to end, and for unscrupulous directors to be held accountable.”

The AMWU submission (21 October 2013) makes four recommendations, namely:

1) Increasing resources and funding to ASIC so that it can properly investigate corporate misbehaviour.

2) A comprehensive review and amendment of s 596AB of the Corporations Act to provide stronger safeguards for employee entitlements and allow for more successful actions by ASIC and liquidators.

3) Introducing a reverse onus procedure by which a director, where there has been an adverse liquidators’ report lodged against them, will be required to ensure that they have acted honestly and responsibly in relation to company affairs.

4) Increasing ASIC’s legislative powers to hold directors and officers personally responsible for unpaid employee entitlements, with a particular focus on phoenix activity.

In expanding on and explaining these recommendations the AMWU says:

1) “ASIC is under-resourced to handle the thousands of complaints submitted to it every year. Regardless of what legislative or regulatory reforms are undertaken, without additionally funding, ASIC will not be able to protect the interests of even the most vulnerable of parties, such as employees. There needs to be a commitment to replace impunity with accountability, and increased resources and funding to ASIC must be the driving force behind this.”

2) “The intention behind s 596AB was to “deter the misuse of company structures … to avoid the payment of amounts to employees that they are entitled to prove for on liquidation of their employer”. This intention has not materialised. Instead, the criticism that s 596AB will prove to be a “toothless tiger… so hard to prove that nobody will be effectively prosecuted” has been proven true. This recommendation would allow for ASIC to, more easily, bring proceedings against directors who have compromised employee entitlements through corporate restructures. This would have a threefold effect of protecting employee entitlements, holding dishonest directors to account, and deterring similar conduct.”

3) “This recommendation is modelled upon Irish legislation under the Companies Act 1990 (Ireland) s 149. In Ireland, where an adverse liquidators’ report has been lodged, directors must ensure that a large amount of equity capital is invested in the new company (at least £100 000 with a minimum of £20 000 paid up in cash) or are required to prove in court why they should not be required to do so. This reverse onus procedure would reduce the detection and compliance burden on ASIC.”

4) “The AMWU submits that continued review of the anti-phoenix activity measures implemented be undertaken, especially in light of the first anniversary of the enactment of the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth).”

In support of its submission the AMWU gives its summary of the following recent cases:

• Steel Tube Pipe Group
• Forgecast Australia Pty Ltd (AMWU v Beynon [2013] FCA 390)
• Carlton Sheet Metal Pty Ltd
• Huon Corporation
• Paragon Printing Ltd

The inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics began on 20 June 2013. Submissions were to close on 21 October 2013. The Committee is due to report by 31 March 2014.

Relationship problems for insolvency practitioners

ASIC, Checklists and guides, Corporate Insolvency, Ethics, Insolvency practices, Regulation Comments Off

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.

Liquidator likely to be banned for 5 years after Court inquiry

ASIC, Case Reports, Corporate Insolvency, court decisions, Ethics, Forms, Insolvency Law, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, law reports, Records Management, Regulation, Standards Comments Off

Sep 032013

Melbourne liquidator Andrew Leonard Dunner is likely to be prohibited from being registered as a liquidator for 5 years, following a decision by the Federal Court in an action brought against him by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

In a media release on 30 August 2013 ASIC said that:

“In handing down his reasons for judgment today, Justice Middleton found that Mr Dunner had failed to adequately investigate the circumstances and affairs of companies to which he was appointed and had inaccurately reported to ASIC and creditors.

“The Court also found that he had drawn remuneration in excess of $600,000 without appropriate approval or adequate supporting documentation. The Court considered it appropriate that he should repay that remuneration and have leave to apply to the Court for justification of an entitlement to recoup remuneration where appropriate. Justice Middleton found that Mr Dunner’s conduct indicated ‘…a systemic failure of administration and internal protocols, as well as (in a number of instances) extremely poor professional judgment. In this way, Mr Dunner has failed to satisfy the high standards of conduct required of his offices’.

“In finding that a banning period of 5 years was appropriate, Justice Middleton said:

‘Withdrawing a liquidator’s registration operates directly to protect the public from the work of the person. It also operates generally by deterring other liquidators from acting in a similar fashion. ASIC submitted – and I accept – that there is a compelling public interest in the maintenance of a system which recognises that registration as a liquidator is a privilege, the continuance of which is conditional upon diligent performance of its attendant duties.’

To see the ASIC media release, CLICK HERE.

To see Justice Middleton’s important 67 page report and judgment, CLICK HERE .

Case citation:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dunner [2013] FCA 872.

Case catchwords:

CORPORATIONS – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 423, 499, 536 – Duties of liquidator – Duties of receiver – Court inquiry into defendant’s conduct as liquidator and receiver – Failure by defendant to investigate circumstances of companies to which he was appointed – Drawing remuneration without approval or adequate supporting documentation – Inaccurate reporting to ASIC and creditors regarding external administrations – Repayment of remuneration drawn without approval – Unfitness to remain registered as liquidator – Duration of prohibition order.

What do ASIC’s Enforcement Outcomes reports mean?

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Statistics, Offences, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Jul 262013

An Enforcement Outcomes report has been issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for the six months from January to June 2013 (Report 360).

It is the fourth of its type since ASIC abandoned its Prosecution Reports. But unlike those reports – upon which I based my paper, “Convictions for summary insolvency offences committed by company directors” , a detailed comparison of prosecution outcomes over the years 2006 to 2010, including the sections of the Corporations Act under which enforcement action was taken and the fines imposed – the new Enforcement Outcomes reports provide far less information.

In the part of the latest Enforcement Outcomes report that mentions summary insolvency offences, the reader is simply told that:

“As part of our liquidator assistance program, 249 directors were successfully prosecuted for summary offences concerning a failure to assist an external administrator.” (paragraph 86)

Similar brief references are made in the three previous reports.

So what, if anything, do these limited figures say?

About all we can do is compare the latest figure with those from the previous 18 month period.

In the six months from July to December 2012 the comparative number of directors successfully prosecuted under the liquidator assistance program was 275. (Report 336, paragraph 91.)

Further comparisons with the two earlier Enforcement Outcomes reports might not be all that meaningful, because those reports give figures on summary “proceedings against” directors rather than the current classification of “successful prosecutions” against directors. That said, the reports for the six months to June 2012 and for the first six months (to December 2011), put the figures at 196 and 208 respectively (see Report 299, paragraph 48 and Report 281, paragraph 39 )

But according to ASIC, readers need to be cautious when making comparisons of such data. The Enforcement Outcomes report 360 states (at paragraph 18):

“Comparisons between individual enforcement reports have some limitations. This is because no two enforcement actions are the same. For example, there may be differences in the complexity or seriousness of the allegations. However, over a two-year period, it is possible to identify the types of conduct or sectors that are the focus of ASIC’s enforcement activity in the longer term.”

This statement – minus the final sentence – was also used in the Media Release that accompanied the report.

Too many liquidators failing to provide adequate disclosure to creditors on relationships

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, Offences, Regulation, Standards Comments Off

Jul 242013

When the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released its report on supervision of registered liquidators it bemoaned the fact that its compliance checks had found a 10% increase in inadequate declarations, up from 46.9% in 2011 to 56.3% in 2012.

In the accompanying Media Release ASIC Commissioner John Price was fairly blunt:

“The increase in inadequate declarations concerns ASIC. Liquidators must make full disclosure to creditors when it comes to their independence. Given our guidance, and education programs through the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia (IPA), there is no good reason for such a failure rate.”

Under the Corporations Act 2001 liquidators and administrators (other than those appointed by the Court) are required to make written declarations to creditors concerning indemnities they have received and relationships they have, or have had, with certain defined “persons” within the preceding 24 months. Both declarations are to be made and sent to creditors before the first meeting of creditors is held. The Declaration of Relevant Relationships and Declaration of Indemnities are referred to collectively in the insolvency profession as a DIRRI.

An “inadequate” DIRRI is described in ASIC’s report (para 56) as one which:

(a) fails to disclose a relevant relationship in pre-appointment dealings and/or, where such a relevant relationship has been identified, adequately explain why it does not create a conflict of interest;

(b) fails to disclose all companies involved in appointments to a group of companies, and whether or not circumstances existed between the group entities that may give rise to a conflict and, if so, how the appointees would manage those issues; and/or

More detailed guidance on how to make sure a DIRRI is adequate was given to registered liquidators in an email sent to them on 28 June 2013 by Adrian Brown, leader of ASIC’s Insolvency Practitioners Team.

The email extract below is Mr Brown’s description of “seven key areas for improving the likelihood that your DIRRIs do comply with the law, relevant professional standards and the IPA’s Code of Professional Practice.”

“1. Disclose pre appointment dealings/advice

Provide meaningful information about the nature and extent of pre-appointment meetings (regardless of the nature of the meeting or dealing, be it face to face meetings, telephone discussions or email/ other electronic communications) with the company’s directors and any of their advisors.

2. Disclose relationships

Disclose all relevant relationships in accordance with the Act, professional standards and the IPA Code to ensure full disclosure and transparency. We suggest you consider:

· how the relevant relationship might impact your ability to act in the best interests of creditors; and

· whether there is a reasonable chance that creditors might consider that independence is, or appears to be, compromised by that relationship if it were to subsequently come to light.

3. Provide a reason why a relationship does not result in a conflict

Give a reason why you believe each relevant relationship does not result in a conflict of interest or duty. The reasons provided must be specific to the appointment and should not simply be a restatement of example reasons provided in the IPA Code.

Merely stating that a relationship will not affect your independence, or that you received no payment for pre-appointment advice or meetings, is NOT a “reason”.

4. Disclose when appointed to a group of companies

Where the appointment is to a number of companies in a group, the DIRRI should specifically refer to each company and cite a reason why you believe that multiple appointments will not result in a conflict of interest or duty.

You should also consider what steps you must take should you become aware of an actual or potential conflict after the appointment.

5. Disclose external administrations with common directors

Documented conflict checks undertaken pre-appointment should show if you or your firm acted, or continue to act, as external administrator of another company with the same or a common director where the appointment occurred within two years before the new appointment.

Where this occurs, the relationship should be disclosed together with the reason why you believe the new appointment will not result in a conflict of interest or duty.

6. Disclose indemnities and other up-front payments

Disclose full details of the nature and extent of all non-statutory indemnities and up-front payments. This should include stating whether there are any conditions governing the indemnity, including what the indemnity can be used for.

7. Review and sign the DIRRI

It is vital that you carefully review every DIRRI before signing it. All appointees must sign the DIRRI.”

ASIC’s message is taking a long time to get across to some liquidators …

Three years ago (May 2010) Mr Stefan Dopking, then ASIC’s leader of the Insolvency Practitioners & Liquidators Stakeholder Team, wrote to registered liquidators to reveal the findings of its compliance review of DIRRIs in 2009. What ASIC found then was strikingly similar to its findings in 2012, as this extract from Mr Dopking’s letter shows:

“The review identified a number of areas where we believe the adequacy of disclosure needs improvement. In particular, our general observations are that:

a large number of Declarations did not adequately disclose the nature of the relationships or provide adequate reasons to explain why the disclosed relationships did not result in a conflict of interest or duty;

Declarations did not clearly articulate whether the registered liquidator’s firm (i.e. partners or related bodies corporate) was included in the Declaration;

the majority of Declarations did not disclose the nature and extent of pre appointment meetings and advice;

prior or contemporaneous appointments as external administrators of other companies with common directors were not adequately disclosed in over 20 instances;

many Declarations did not provide sufficient information to adequately identify the party providing an indemnity or sufficiently disclose the nature and extent of the indemnity provided;

many Declarations were not signed by both joint and several appointees (ASIC is of the view that each appointee must consider whether any relevant relationships exist that require disclosure and the Corporations Act 2001 (‘the Act’) requires each appointee to sign the relevant Declarations); and

it was not evident from the minutes of the meeting of creditors in many cases that Declarations were tabled at the meeting of creditors as required by the Act3. Minutes of the meeting of creditors should evidence compliance with this statutory requirement.”

The law requiring liquidators to prepare DIRRIs for creditors came into effect in January 2008.

(End of post)

ASIC invites comment on use of its new power to wind up companies

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Employee Entitlements, GEERS, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, Regulation, White collar crime Comments Off

Jul 182012

How should the public interest test be applied?

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released a consultation paper outlining how it intends to implement its new power to wind up companies.

Recent amendments to the Corporations Act have given ASIC the power to order the wind up a company in specific circumstances and appoint a liquidator. The Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Act 2012 amends the Corporations Act to add a new part to Chapter 5 – External Administrations. The new part (Part 5.4C) – which comprises new sections 489EA, 489EB and 489EC – gives ASIC the power to wind up companies in FOUR scenarios:

SCENARIO 1:

ASIC may order a winding up if:

(a)	the response to a return of particulars given to the company is at least 6 months late; and
(b)	the company has not lodged any other documents under this Act in the last 18 months; and
(c)	ASIC has reason to believe that the company is not carrying on business; and
(d)	ASIC has reason to believe that making the order is in the public interest.

SCENARIO 2:

ASIC may order a winding up if the company’s review fee in respect of a review date has not been paid in full at least 12 months after the due date for payment.

SCENARIO 3:

ASIC may order a winding up if

(a)	ASIC has reinstated the registration of the company under subsection 601AH(1) in the last 6 months; and
(b)	ASIC has reason to believe that making the order is in the public interest.

SCENARIO 4:

ASIC may order a winding up if

(a)	ASIC has reason to believe that the company is not carrying on business; and
(b)	at least 20 business days before making the order, ASIC gives to:
	(i)	the company; and
	(ii)	each director of the company;
	a notice:
	(iii)	stating ASIC’s intention to make the order; and
	(iv)	informing the company or the director, as the case may be, that the company or the director may, within 10 business days after the receipt of the notice, give ASIC a written objection to the making of the order; and
(c)	neither the company, nor any of its directors, has given ASIC such an objection within the time limit specified in the notice.

Comments on Consultation Paper 180 are due by Friday 10 August, 2012.

Click here to download Consultation Paper 180. (PDF format.)

The following is ASIC’s media release of 12 July 2012:

ASIC today released a consultation paper outlining how it intends to implement its new power to wind up abandoned companies under the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to facilitate greater access to the General Employee Entitlements Redundancy Scheme (GEERS).

Consultation Paper 180 ASIC’s power to wind up abandoned companies outlines how ASIC intends to exercise this new power, and how it will prioritise matters for winding up

‘When using this power, our first consideration will be if an order to wind up the company would facilitate employee access to GEERS’, Commissioner John Price said.

GEERS is a scheme funded by the Australian Government to assist employees of companies that have gone into liquidation and who are owed certain employee entitlements. However, companies are sometimes abandoned by their directors without being put into liquidation. This has previously resulted in employees of the company who are owed employee entitlements being unable to access GEERS.

Consistent with the new law, ASIC is proposing to apply a public interest test when deciding whether to wind up a company. This public interest test will consider factors like the cost of winding up, the amount of outstanding employee entitlements and how many employees are affected.

‘ASIC needs to consider the broader public interest when deciding which abandoned companies with outstanding employee entitlements will be wound up’, Mr Price said.

ASIC is proposing not to reinstate companies that have already been deregistered in order to wind them up later. Among other reasons, there are already court processes in place to facilitate the reinstatement of a company where that is needed.

ASIC intends to commence using this new power to wind up abandoned companies in the final quarter of 2012.

Comments on Consultation Paper 180 ASIC’s power to wind up abandoned companies are due by Friday 10 August, 2012.

Background

One of the measures of the Australian Government’s Protecting Workers’ Entitlements Package (announced July 2010) is to assist employees of abandoned companies to access the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme when they are owed certain employee entitlements.

When the employer is a corporation, it must be in liquidation before GEERS can assist an employee.

Amendments to the Corporations Act have given ASIC the power to wind up an abandoned company in specific circumstances.

ASIC may appoint a registered liquidator over a company when exercising its power to wind up an abandoned company.

Location of ASIC website for publication of insolvency notices

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Notices, Insolvency practices, Regulation Comments Off

Jul 042012

The new ASIC website to be used by liquidators and other insolvency practitioners, and which can be searched by the public free of charge, is located at https://insolvencynotices.asic.gov.au/

The name of the site is a little misleading, because not all the notices are about insolvent companies. Notices to do with solvent companies who have entered a members’ voluntary liquidation are also shown. Accordingly, caution needs to be shown when browsing or searching. For example, regardless of whether a company is undergoing a solvent liquidation or an insolvent liquidation, the Browse/Search Notices page of the website shows the Status of such companies as simply “In liquidation”. Even when a notice is Viewed, there is no obvious sign as to the type of liquidation the company is undergoing.

When browsing or searching the results can be filtered by Appointment Type. The types are Court Liquidation, Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation, Deed of Company Arrangement, Deregistration, Members’ Voluntary Liquidation, Scheme of Arrangement, Voluntary Administration and Winding Up Application.

New regime for publication of insolvency notices

ASIC, Corporate Insolvency, Insolvency Notices, Insolvency practices, Regulation Comments Off

Jun 262012

From 1 July 2012 most insolvency notices issued by Australian registered liquidators will be published on a new website set up by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

This largely replaces the existing age-old system under which notices were published in classified advertisements in newspapers and in the Federal Government’s business gazette.

Just ahead of the start of the new system and the launch of the ASIC’s special website, the ASIC has sent three documents to liquidators explaining the change:

“Getting started on ASIC’s new website for insolvency and other matters.” To read and/or copy CLICK HERE.
“Updated fact sheet for Registered Liquidators – 26/6/2012: Lodging notices for publication on the ASIC’s website.” To read and/or copy CLICK HERE.
“Fact sheet – Proposed changes to publish notices electronically.” To read and/or copy CLICK HERE.

The types of notices that must be sent to the new ASIC website are :

1. notices of winding up applications
2. notices relating to appointments
3. notices of meetings of creditors
4. notices of intention to disclaim property
5. notices calling for proofs of debt and intention to declare dividends
6. company deregistration.

Anyone will be able to search the new website free of charge for a particular notice. The enquiry/search parameters will be:

* company name.
* trading name.
* appointment type (eg court liquidation, voluntary administration etc)
* notice purpose (eg meeting of creditors, appointment, declaration of dividend, disclaimer etc).
* publication date.

The ASIC expects to introduce more advanced search functionality after 1 July 2012.

Parliament debates the proposed new liquidation and “phoenixing” laws

ASIC, Insolvency Laws, Insolvency practices, Regulation Comments Off

Mar 092012

Although it started out with a dream run, the Bill to allow ASIC to order the winding up of companies has been the subject of considerable debate in the House of Representatives.

The government had hoped to get the Corporations Amendment (Phoenixing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 through quickly. It was introduced in the House on 15 February 2012. A day later it was referred to the House Standing Committee on Economics. The Committee met via a telephone conference – which lasted less than a minute – on 21 February 2012 and resolved to discharge the reference. The Committee issued a statement of explanation on 27 February 2012, saying:

“….the committee considers that the Bill comprises uncontroversial measures that will assist in curbing the amoral practice of phoenixing.”

The Committee quoted from a briefing issued by the law firm Minter Ellison, which expressed the view that the Bill “contains some reasonable measures for facilitating the protection of workers’ entitlements. These measures are unlikely to affect the position of the majority of directors.”

But back in the House of Reps heated debate ensued. A total of seventeen speeches for and against the Bill were made by MPs. Naturally MPs took the view of their party, but nevertheless the debate did explore many of the issues involved. Those who spoke were:

Joe Hockey (LP) (Opposition); Julie Owens (ALP) (Government); Scott Buchholz (LP); Bernie Ripoll (ALP); Paul Fletcher (LP); Gai Brodtmann (ALP); Deb O’Neill (ALP); Steven Ciobo (LP); Sharon Grierson (ALP); Steve Irons (LP); Kelvin Thompson (ALP); Bruce Billson (LP); Mike Symon (ALP); Bert Van Manen (LP); Tony Zappia (ALP); Stuart Robert (LP); David Bradbury (ALP).

All the speeches may be seen at the following link:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/summary/summary.w3p;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4753%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22;rec=0

The main protagonists were David Bradbury (for) and Joe Hockey (against). The speech on 1 March 2012 by David Bradbury will be found by following this link:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/bda27a36-a8b5-4e6a-a64f-6084b2c53511/0059/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

The speech on 1 March 2012 by Joe Hockey will be found by following this link:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/89274c8f-2468-4c73-b7cf-69715d12aa15/0167/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

_______________________________________________________

None of the debate touches on the technical issues that I pondered in my post entitled Questions concerning new power for winding up by ASIC.

Older Entries Newer Entries

Case citation:

Case catchwords:

So what, if anything, do these limited figures say?

“1. Disclose pre appointment dealings/advice

2. Disclose relationships

3. Provide a reason why a relationship does not result in a conflict

4. Disclose when appointed to a group of companies

5. Disclose external administrations with common directors

6. Disclose indemnities and other up-front payments

7. Review and sign the DIRRI

ASIC’s message is taking a long time to get across to some liquidators …

How should the public interest test be applied?

“Getting started on ASIC’s new website for insolvency and other matters.” To read and/or copy CLICK HERE.

“Updated fact sheet for Registered Liquidators – 26/6/2012: Lodging notices for publication on the ASIC’s website.” To read and/or copy CLICK HERE.

“Fact sheet – Proposed changes to publish notices electronically.” To read and/or copy CLICK HERE.