This clearly is more shit from the IPAA and ITSA.
Adam Toma and Veronique Ingram have a policy at ITSA of protecting Fraud.
This is also being instigated by Matthew Osborne , Legal Officer at ITSA.
As seen at the NSW ICAC Systemic corrupt conduct must have a network to allow the practice to occur.
Although ITSA was reported to the Commonwealth Ombudsman the acting Ombudsman Alison Larkins who needs a cock up her enormous arse made a decision to protect this practice.
Any systemic corrupt conduct is required to be reported to the Attorney General under S 15 of the Ombudsmans Act.
This conduct was also protected by the Australian Service Commissioner Steven Sedgwick.
Adam Toma has now asked the Federal Police to also protect this practice.
It will now be very interesting whether Adam Toma and senior Management at ITSA perjure themselves in the witness box or fall on their swords prior to cross -examination.
It should be made clear to anyone who reads this that ITSA has a policy that they have discretion on Fraud!!!!
Clearly the senior Management at ITSA should bend forward... put their heads between their legs and suck their own cocks!!!
. Shit from the IPAA
How quickly should a practitioner respond to creditor or other queries?
Writing to individual creditors and others in response to
questions about the conduct or progress of the insolvency does cost and
any communications have to be assessed in commercial terms that take
into account the importance and significance of the information being
conveyed, and the legal requirements. In the communications section of the IPA Code para 8.1 says that practitioners should exercise judgment when “balancing the needs of individuals for information or responses to inquiries with the overall efficiency and costs of the administration”. The IPA often receives inquiries about this issue, both from creditors, and practitioner members.
In Barlaw v Crouch [2011] FMCA 384*, the court explained the issue like this:
51. Barlaw [a creditor] asserts that Mr Crouch [the trustee] failed to answer or deal with reasonable inquiries of creditors. I accept that there have been numerous requests by Barlaw to the trustee for information. I also accept that not all of those requests have been dealt with by Mr Crouch. However, the Bankruptcy Act does not oblige a trustee to answer every item of correspondence or enquiry by a creditor and it needs to be borne in mind that ordinarily, there will be limited if any funds available to a trustee in the administration of a bankrupt estate. If excessive demands are made on a trustee by one creditor that is likely to disadvantage other creditors by reducing funds available for distribution from the estate. The law does not therefore oblige a practitioner to answer every letter, email or inquiry from a creditor. In fact there are usually limited if any funds available to do so. If there are funds, excessive demands made on a practitioner by one creditor are likely to disadvantage other creditors by reducing funds available for all. But sometimes more work, and problems and then complaints, can build up, which a prompt initial response to an inquiry might have averted. It is a matter of professional and commercial judgment, which as IPA members we all have.
This is also a matter of possible law reform, with the cost of attending to the legal requirements in communicating with creditors not much alleviated by the law. The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2013 did in fact look to set legal requirements for responses by practitioners, but it did not offer much by way of reducing the costs of doing so.
Any comments are welcome.
* an appeal judgment from that decision appears to be reserved, since 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment