Conduct of liquidation review

mrawkward

Can anyone on here advise as to any available mechanisms to have the performance of a liquidator reviewed at the request of a creditor.

ACADasltiv

It would depend on the issue really. Could be ODCE, could be their membership body. If you could offer more information regarding your concerns then I may be able to assist.

mrawkward

I am a creditor and four years on the assets have all be sold...no reports, no figures of sums realised, let alone numbers available for distribution. I understand even the unsecured prefs have not yet been discharged.

ODCE only seem to be concerned with director prudential issues. To whom is the liquidator accountable is I suppose the question. It is a creditor meeting appointed liquidator.

pedroeibar1

mrawkward wrote: »

I am a creditor and four years on the assets have all be sold...no reports, no figures of sums realised, let alone numbers available for distribution. I understand even the unsecured prefs have not yet been discharged.

ODCE only seem to be concerned with director prudential issues. To whom is the liquidator accountable is I suppose the question. It is a creditor meeting appointed liquidator.

Legally, the insolvency unit of the ODCE has a role to play not only in chasing aberrant directors, but also liquidators who do not fulfill their function/discharge their duties properly.

However, and contrary to an earlier reply, I’d expect little from the ODCE and the professional bodies. The former works with the liquidator and, as you pointed out, awaits a Section 682 report from him/her at the end of the liquidation. The professional bodies have no interest either, can anybody name any professional misconduct hearing for any of the bankers/auditors who belong to those bodies? Even for those ACA’s in jail for fraud-related convictions?

Was there a Committee of Inspection? Who appointed the liquidator? I’d use that route if it’s available. Create waves – (no better man!) – get a few other creditors together, fire a few missiles, let the liquidator know he is not dealing with a group of patsies.

A liquidator must file a report with the Director of Corporate Enforcement within 6 months after his appointment and at intervals as required by the Director. Has he done this? If not, why not?

Liquidators have extensive powers, among them the right to appoint a solicitor to assist him in the performance of his duties. Inevitably they do this, usually a mate, a cosy relationship. It is almost impossible to chase a liquidator and hold him responsible. There are far too many lawyers/accountants with their snouts in the gravy train trough, all unwilling to rock the boat.

You need to get a few more of the substantial creditors together , intimate to the liquidator that there is a heave to replace him, rattle a cage.......

I have an elderly female friend who lost a sizeable amount in a high profile (financial, non-bank) liquidation. In her words “We were robbed by that conman idiot Mr. X but the liquidator was worse, he screwed us over royally with his outlandish fees.” In that liquidation a Big 4 got millions, the creditors got peanuts.

Who hid and signed off on the mess that is Carillion, and who will make the money out of sorting it out?

mrawkward

Pretty much as I suspected.... the statutory accountability of liquidators is virtually non-existent. They do have to file 12 monthly form E3 returns.

Form E3, Liquidator's account of his/her acts and dealings - is not required if the winding up continues for a period of less than 12 months. However, if the winding up continues for a longer period, a Form E3 must be filed for the first 12 months, and for every period of exactly 12 months thereafter.

No E3 filings have been made by the liquidator in the four years so far.......perhaps the crack to leverage/play the ODCE card to secure the detail????

pedroeibar1

mrawkward wrote: »

Pretty much as I suspected.... the statutory accountability of liquidators is virtually non-existent. They do have to file 12 monthly form E3 returns.

Form E3, Liquidator's account of his/her acts and dealings - is not required if the winding up continues for a period of less than 12 months. However, if the winding up continues for a longer period, a Form E3 must be filed for the first 12 months, and for every period of exactly 12 months thereafter.

No E3 filings have been made by the liquidator in the four years so far.......perhaps the crack to leverage/play the ODCE card to secure the detail????

In the absence of the other things I mentioned, yes, the ODCE is the way to go, but I would not hold my breath. Also, in general, even if a liquidator loses a legal action taken against him, the costs/damages are charged against the assets of the company, not him, so it is somewhat Pyrrhic as it reduces the eventual pot..Best of luck with it, let us know if the ODCE does anything.

mrawkward

I have now asked the liquidator to provide the up to date information and explain the missing E3 filings or whether I should route my queries through the ODCE. I very much doubt he would want that particular species of nit in his hair!!

Fionn101

One of the better threads here in a long time and thanks for continuing the conversation publicly.

Good luck Mr A.

mrawkward

The paucity in number of contributions is a sad reflection on how moribund this forum has become. The decline was well flagged but the much heralded forum reforms just vaporised. As you sow, so...................

ACADasltiv

Whether or not the ODCE or membership body do in fact act on your queries should be irrelevant from my own experience, the threat of being reported alone should be enough to get the Liquidator to act. It certainly would if it's an experienced insolvency practitioner, perhaps it could be different with someone who only does the odd liquidation. I would expect a quick response with an explanation and if not, then it does warrant further action.

There are a myriad of reasons why the liquidation may not have been brought to a close after 4 years, however under Section 680 of the Companies Act there are to be annual meetings held to update creditors on the situation. While no one turns up to these in the majority of situations, the Liquidator should at least have informed you that a meeting was to be convened.

pedroeibar1

mrawkward wrote: »

The paucity in number of contributions is a sad reflection on how moribund this forum has become. The decline was well flagged but the much heralded forum reforms just vaporised. As you sow, so...................

Agreed. A successful forum needs active participation by a Mod(s) as well as contributors. This Forum has two Mods, one of them has posted just one ‘non-Mod’ comment in the last month; the other last posted 2 months and three weeks ago (but is a regular on the mixed martial arts board). That says it all really.

On your Liquidator issue I'd give him 7 days and then write to the ODCE, where I’d guess your letter would be passed to a very junior grunt. The bigger boys are ‘very busy’ dealing with the real experts (from the UK), to whom they have outsourced resolving the mess they have landed themselves in with the INM/O’Brien affair. Must be lovely to have a well-paid sinecure and delegate work, particularly if you do not want to admit it is beyond your competence!

mrawkward

An email referencing non-compliance with form E3 returns and S680 Companies Act meetings has resulted in responsive communications. Job done.. thank you for the input and suggestions.