Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Boensch V Pasoe/ Conduct of Trustee


Boensch v Pascoe - court inquiries, remuneration, independence ...

by IPA | Dec 18, 2007
Boensch v Pascoe [2007] FCA 1977 is a Federal Court decision that raises issues concerning:
  • court inquiries into insolvency practitioners’ conduct;
  • pursuing recoveries for remuneration; and
  • independence and conflicts of interest, arising out of tensions in the trustee-bankrupt relationship, and conflicts involving the retainer of lawyers.
The decision is relevant to standards of conduct of insolvency practitioners generally and to the IPA’s new Code Of Professional Practice, which comes inot effect on 31 December 2007.  Other issues including abandonment of the bankrupt’s proceedings (s 60 BA), communications with the bankrupt, meetings of creditors, objections to discharge and proxies are covered in the judgment.
The Court was asked by the bankrupt to pursue an inquiry under s 179 of theBankruptcy Act into the conduct of the trustee; the equivalent section in theCorporations Act is s 536: see Maxwell-Smith v Donnelly and Hall v Poolman.  The Court refused the application.
The judgment should be read in its entirety but these issues and comments are extracted for the benefit of IPA members.
Standards of trustee conduct
The Court referred to the standards of trustee conduct prescribed by Schedule 4A of the Bankruptcy Regulations.  Amongst other things the Regulations impose a duty to act honestly and impartially (Sched 4A cl 2.2) and to disclose and avoid actual and potential conflicts of interest (Sched 4A cl 2.3).  The Court saw these standards as
“consistent ... with the standards of prudent administration upon which the Court would normally insist”. 
See now Chapters 5 and 6 of the IPA Code.
Recovery of assets for payment of remuneration
The Court said that a trustee can legitimately pursue assets for the benefit of the trustee’s remuneration, saying that  
“[the bankrupt] relied heavily upon the fact that recovery of additional property would also provide the only source of funds from which the trustee’s fees might be paid.  As Mr Pascoe said in his evidence, that is not an exceptional circumstance.  It may readily be the case that the very circumstance of bankruptcy presents a trustee with a circumstance in which insufficient funds are, or will ultimately be, available to pay creditors in full and where the trustee’s remuneration also may depend upon recovery of funds into the estate.  A trustee does not thereby become disabled from an efficient and, if necessary robust, administration of an estate because his own fees may depend on the outcome.
Recovery of a trustee’s fees is guaranteed by the Act if funds are available in the estate.  Payment of ‘the costs, charges and expenses of the administration of the bankruptcy, including the remuneration and expenses of the trustee’ is given a substantial priority (s 109(1)(a)).  It is the Act itself which orders the priorities of payments out of the estate.  The fact that the trustee’s fees would be met before creditors were paid did not disqualify Mr Pascoe from making the necessary decisions or taint them with self-interest. 
In my view there is no substance [to the challenge] that Mr Pascoe was motivated by pecuniary self-interest at the expense of a proper and even-handed evaluation of creditor’s interests.  If the fact that Mr Pascoe’s remuneration might come eventually from the recovery of property against the wishes of some claimed creditors was a disqualifying factor then it would disable him completely from the administration of the estate as soon as opposition arose.  It would disqualify every trustee in a similar position.  The difficulty could not be cured by treating creditors more ‘even handedly’.
This issue has recently been raised in the Hall v Poolman decision, and other decisions referred to on the IPA website. 
Legal advice
The Federal Court raised issues about the solicitor for the trustee also acting as solicitor for a creditor at a meeting of creditors and the trustee being
“seen to take advice from the representative of a creditor who was clearly in conflict with other persons at the meeting about the question whether Mr Pascoe should continue as trustee ...”.
Conflict based on a break down in relations
There was no basis for removal of the trustee because of the poor relationship between the trustee and the bankrupt, which the Judge described as “not a smooth one”.
“Obviously enough, a bankrupt should not be allowed, by an assiduous pattern of resistance to the trustee of his estate, to generate and then rely upon a suggested reason for removal thereby created.  No doubt there are many instances in which disagreement may arise about the way a trustee is administering an estate or exercising his powers. ... It is clearly an insufficient ground for removal of a trustee that a bankrupt resists the proper administration of his estate or sets out to frustrate a trustee in the proper performance of his duties”.
In this case, “the apparently marked lack of trust” between the trustee and the bankrupt did not indicate any failing by the trustee in the administration of the estate.  See the IPA Code at Chapter 6.12.4.
Objections to discharge
The court upheld objections to discharge that were lodged by the trustee.  Issues concerning the use of objections to punish the bankrupt, or to achieve some collateral purpose, were raised in the judgment.  See also Lockwood v Vince [2007] FCA 1946 for a recent decision on this law. 
Michael Murray
Legal Director, Insolvency Practitioners Association
E-mail: mmurray@ipaa.com.au 
building professional excellence

Monday, 25 March 2013

Decision by CALDB / David Mark Anderson

Corporations Law
SECTION 1296(1)(c)
NOTICE OF DECISION
At a hearing held on 24 June 2011 pursuant to section 1294 of the Corporations Act
("Act"), a Panel of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board
decided that it was satisfied, on an application by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission for David Mark ANDERSON ("Respondent"), a registered
liquidator, to be dealt with under section 1292 of the Act, that the Respondent had
contravened section 1288 of the Act. The Panel ordered that the Respondent's
registration as a liquidator be cancelled with effect thirty days after the order takes
effect.
Dated: 7 July 2011
Gary K Hoare
Registrar

Whistleblowers/ OGP/ Allan Kessing/ Airports

THE federal government has accelerated its push for a more open system of government by introducing the first federal law protecting public servants who reveal maladministration.
It plans to reverse decades of government secrecy by protecting public servants who reveal serious wrongdoing to the media.
The new scheme is intended to encourage whistleblowers in the federal public service by giving them the nation's most extensive system of legal protection and support.
Cabinet secretary Joe Ludwig, who unveiled the scheme in parliament yesterday, was praised last night by whistleblowers and legal academics for delivering a scheme that goes beyond the more limited schemes in force in the states. "It is close to world's best practice," said legal academic A.J. Brown.
"It will change the culture of government," said Peter Bennett, president of Whistleblowers Australia.
The scheme will be contained in a planned public interest disclosure act that will fulfil Labor's promise to address the problems in the legal system highlighted by the case of convicted whistleblower Allan Kessing.
Senator Ludwig declined to discuss the Kessing case last night, but lawyers believe the government's scheme could have been enough to prevent Mr Kessing being convicted in 2007 over the disclosure of long-ignored flaws in security at Sydney Airport.
"This is not a scheme to legitimise leaking in general - it is a scheme to protect whistleblowing through appropriate channels," Senator Ludwig said.
The government plans to introduce an internal system for handling public interest complaints within the bureaucracy that will involve every agency in the federal public service. If that system fails to address concerns about serious matters in a "reasonable" time, public servants will be given legal protection if they tell the media or anyone else.
The scheme would also protect what is expected to be a smaller category of public servants who bypass the internal system and go directly to the media with public interest disclosures about serious matters. Direct approaches to the media would be protected whenever exceptional circumstances exist, in cases where a public servant believes on reasonable grounds that there is a substantial and imminent threat to people's lives, health or safety.
Senator Ludwig said the scheme would be the first stand-alone system of whistleblower protection for the commonwealth public service.
It has been unveiled a week after Senator Ludwig and Attorney-General Robert McClelland welcomed a report from the Australian Law Reform Commission calling for the repeal of part of the Commonwealth Crimes Act that imposes criminal penalties for unauthorised disclosures by public servants.
The whistleblower scheme would mean complaints about wrongdoing would usually be made to a public servant's own agency and if necessary to an external agency such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
The government aims to have the public interest disclosure act in force by next January.

Saturday, 23 March 2013

Whistleblowers/ Australian Federal Police


This is from the Australian Federal Police................

Think carefully before becoming a whistleblower as you will probably be fucked over


Whistleblower Protection

This page contains useful information in relation to public interest disclosures,  whistleblower protection and related matters.
Corporate Governance: Whistleblower Protection Program for Entities (AS 8004-2003). Standards Australia.
This Australian Standard provides essential elements for establishing, implementing and managing an effective whistleblower scheme within an entity and provides guidance when using these elements.
Community Intelligence – Collecting and Processing Tip-offs: Australian Taxation Office. Performance Audit. Australian National Audit Office. 2010.
The audit assesses the effectiveness of the management of community intelligence by the Australian Tax Office.
Whistleblower Protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector. Report of the inquiry into whistleblowing protection within the Australian Government public sector. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. 2009.   
The report of the inquiry into whistleblowing protection within the Australian Government public sector, presenting a preferred model for legislation to protect public interest disclosures (whistleblowing) within the Australian Government public sector.
Centrelink’s Tip-off System. Performance Audit. Australian National Audit Office. 2008. 
The audit examines the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the tip off system,including Centrelink’s management of privacy issues related to the tip off management process.
Whistleblowing in Australian Public Sector: Enhancing the theory and practice of internal witness management in public sector organisation. ANU E Press. 2008.
This book presents results from a program of empirical and comparative legal research into public interest whistleblowing in Australian public sector agencies undertaken in 2005-08.

Four Corners/ Eddie Obeid/ Corrupt Labor Minister


Eddie Obeid  was a corrupt Labor Politician under the NSW  Labor  Government lead by Bob Carr who is now the Australian Foreign Minister.
This lebo and his family are now being investigated for massive corruption by ICAC.
Moses Obeid is also being prosecuted  by the City of Sydney Council for 12 million
As Mining Minister he cut enormous deals for himself.
Before he was Mining Minister he was the Minister responsible for issuing fishing licences. Anyone  with a long enough memory will remember   the turmoil  with the licences. Looks like the lebo has been on the take for a very long time.
He was a Labor powerbroker, a kingmaker with an uncanny ability to bend people to his will. At the height of his power, Eddie Obeid could make and break Premiers. Now he finds himself at the centre of explosive corruption allegations that threaten his future, his family and the party that delivered him power.
Next on Four Corners, reporter Marian Wilkinson charts Eddie Obeid's rise inside Labor's most powerful faction, the New South Wales right. How did a Lebanese immigrant move from owning an ethnic newspaper business to become the most influential politician in the State?
Talking to Labor Party insiders - including senior political figures, staffers and public servants - Wilkinson examines the allegations made against Obeid and another former Labor minister, Ian Macdonald. With forensic detail, Four Corners lays out the details and timeline of alleged corrupt behaviour, setting it against the political events of the same period. The story reveals a party and a government being destroyed from within. It also makes it plain, as one former insider explains, that with Eddie Obeid flexing his power, the process of governing the State could be subverted for the benefit of a few.
"I formed the view when I left, that the Government was no longer acting in the public interest, it was acting in private interests, and if the public interest got a look-in it was purely by coincidence."
"The Enemy Within", reported by Marian Wilkinson and presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 11th March at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 12th March at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 on Saturday at 8.00pm, on ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners.

The Enemy Within
Reporter Marian Wilkinson charts Eddie Obeid's rise inside Labor's most powerful faction, the New South Wales right.
He was a Labor powerbroker, a kingmaker with an uncanny
Show transcript
Show background information
First posted March 11, 2013 12:18:00

Four Corners/ Corrupt Wall Street

The Untouchables

By PBS Frontline
Updated March 18, 2013 11:08:00
The Untouchables
In this investigation we hear from industry whistleblowers who were forced to approve loans they felt would almost certainly fail.
It's over four years since the global financial crisis began. We now know the crisis that took the world to the brink of financial meltdown - throwing millions of people out of work and devastating entire communities - began on Wall Street.
In the wake of the crisis, the newly elected President Barack Obama promised to make greedy bankers pay for their crimes. Four years on, not a single senior Wall Street executive has faced criminal prosecution. The question is why? Are they simply too big to jail?
"I think prosecutors around the country... should speak to regulators, should speak to experts, because if I bring a case against institution A, and there is some huge economic effect... it's a factor we need to know and understand." Senior Federal Prosecutor
Next on Four Corners, a PBS-Frontline investigation asks why the United States Department of Justice has failed to act on credible evidence that Wall Street deliberately packaged toxic loans and sold them to investors.
These allegations don't simply come from disgruntled investors. In this investigation we hear from industry whistleblowers who were forced to approve loans they felt would almost certainly fail.
We also hear from financial experts hired by the banks to assess the quality of loan portfolios that would later be resold. They tell how they were ordered by their bosses on Wall Street to approve the purchase of portfolios that clearly contained loans based on flawed assumptions. In effect, they were being asked to overlook fraud. In one case, one due-diligence underwriter became so alarmed he wrote to the chairman of the bank employing him. His warnings were ignored.
Legal experts claim these testimonies should have provided the basis for Justice Department prosecutions. In this brutally frank exposé, prosecutors and Government officials explain how the hard decisions were not taken, and how Wall Street was allowed to get away with one of the biggest frauds in history.
"So you are telling me that not one banker, not one executive on Wall Street... committed provable fraud? I mean I just don't believe that." Former Federal Political Advisor
"The Untouchables", reported by Martin Smith and presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 18th March at 8.30pm. It is replayed on Tuesday 19th March at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 on Saturday at 8.00pm and at ABC iview.
Show transcript
Show background information
First posted March 18, 2013 11:00:00

OGP/ Barack Obama

MORE Shit from the US Government and OBAMA... well you have to laugh!!!!!..... the corruption in the US makes the rest of us appear insignificant............................

The Open Government Partnership


Date: 06/30/2011 Location: Washington, DC Description: Open Government Partnership logo. Conversations With America with Under Secretary Otero, July 7, 2011. - State Dept Image
We pledge to be more transparent at every level -- because more information on government activity should be open, timely, and freely available to people. We need to pledge to engage more of our citizens in decision-making -- because it makes government more effective and responsive. We pledge to implement the highest standards of integrity -- because those in power must serve the people, not themselves. And we pledge to increase access to technology -- because in this digital century, access to information is a right that is universal.”
--- President Barack Obama
September 20, 2011
"In the 21st century, the United States is convinced that one of the most significant divisions among nations will not be north/south, east/west, religious, or any other category so much as whether they are open or closed societies. We believe that countries with open governments, open economies, and open societies will increasingly flourish. They will become more prosperous, healthier, more secure, and more peaceful."
--- Secretary Hillary Clinton
Open Government Partnership Opening Session, April 2012

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a global effort to make governments better. Citizens want more transparent, effective and accountable governments—with institutions that empower citizens and are responsive to their aspirations. But this work is never easy.
It takes political leadership. It takes technical knowledge. It takes sustained effort and investment. It takes collaboration between government and civil society.
The Open Government Partnership is a new multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. In the spirit of multi-stakeholder collaboration, OGP is overseen by a Steering Committee of governments and civil society organizations.
To become a member of OGP, participating countries must:
  • embrace a high-level Open Government Declaration
  • deliver a concrete action plan, developed with public consultation
  • commit to independent reporting on their progress going forward
The Open Government Partnership formally launched on September 20, 2011, when the 8 founding governments (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States) endorsed the Open Government Declaration, announced their country action plans, and welcomed the commitment of 38 governments to join the Partnership.

OGP held its first annual high-level meeting on April 17-18, 2012 in Brasilia, Brazil. Since its launch, OGP has grown to become a global community of government reformers, civil society leaders, and business innovators, who together are advancing a new standard of good governance in the 21st century. Through concrete commitments announced via OGP action plans, over fifty-five governments are taking important steps towards greater transparency, accountability and participation that will ultimately improve the lives of people around the world.
Additional Elements

Open Government Partnership Brochure [PDF]
05/09/2011 - U.S. Department of State Open Government Plan [PDF]
04/05/2012 - Under Secretary Otero's blog on the Era of Open Government DipNote»
09/20/2011 - Under Secretary Otero's blog on the Open Government Partnership Launch DipNote»
For more up-to-date information, please visit http://www.opengovpartnership.org or follow @opengovpart on Twitter.
For further information or questions, please contact ogp@state.gov.
Watch Secretary Clinton’s remarks at the Open Government Partnership Opening Session, April 17,