Proposed industry funding model for registered liquidators warrants serious consideration

Fundamental aspects of the Federal Government's proposed industry funding model for ASIC's regulatory activities with respect to registered liquidators warrant serious consideration.

In November 2016, the Federal Government published a further consultation paper on the Proposed Industry Funding Model for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Funding Model). The formal consultation period for the Funding Model, which was prompted by the Financial System Inquiry's recommendation for ASIC's regulatory activities to be funded by industry, ended on 16 December 2016. The Government has committed to the passage of legislation for the Funding Model in July 2017, with the first levies due from registered liquidators in February 2019.

There is a significant disparity in the cost of ASIC's regulatory activities between the 6 different sectors of the financial system it regulates. Acknowledging this, the Funding Model proposes that each sector fund its own regulation.    

A self-funding model has merit and has been successfully adopted by regulators in other comparable jurisdictions. The U.S. Trustee Service, for example, is funded predominantly by filing fees and the quarterly fee paid by chapter 11 debtors. However, the Funding Model, insofar as it concerns registered liquidators, is, in its current form, not appropriately adapted to achieving its stated goal of ensuring that the costs of regulation are proportionately borne by those creating the need for it.

The Funding Model proposes that ASIC's estimated $8.5 million annual cost of regulating registered liquidators be borne by the 710 currently registered liquidators in 2017-18 by way of a fixed levy of $5,000 plus a graduated levy based on the number of appointments compared to the total number of appointments industry wide (estimated to be $550 per appointment). In 2018-19, consideration will be given to moving to an "assets realised" levy based on information provided to ASIC in annual administration returns lodged by registered liquidators. The levy is in addition to registration fees which are proposed to increase from $387 to $3,500 (with a renewal fee of $1,700 every 3 years).

Number of appointments levy metric

The proposed levy in 2017-18 is a tiering based on the number of external administration appointments, including the appointment of a registered liquidator as a controller, provisional liquidator, liquidator, voluntary administrator, or administrator of a deed of company arrangement. The number of appointments is to be adjusted, relevantly, so that where:  

  1. the company is under two or more types of external administration, this is counted as two separate external administration appointments;
  2. a registered liquidator is replaced by a registered liquidator from another firm, this is counted as an external administration appointment by both liquidators; and
  3. the appointment of a registered liquidator from another firm as a special purpose liquidator is counted as an external administration appointment by both liquidators.

This levy metric implies that the more appointments undertaken or the more external administrators appointed to a company from different firms, the higher the level of regulatory oversight required by ASIC and the greater the resources required by ASIC.

There is no necessary correlation between the number of appointments and the risk of misconduct. As such, this metric does not fairly distribute the cost of regulation and is likely to adversely impact upon registered liquidators who operate in the high-volume, low margin sector of the market and to deter registered liquidators from taking appointments to assetless companies.

Assets realised levy metric

The proposed levy in 2018-19 is a tiering on the basis of the value of assets realised. The rationale for this metric is that the higher the value of assets realised, the greater the risk and need for regulatory oversight. This may be so if risk is measured by the gravity of the consequence of wrongdoing. However, if high-value realisations are conducted by larger firms with sophisticated compliance systems designed to minimise the risk of undetected misconduct, an assets realised apportionment will likely result in the costs of regulation being borne by those registered liquidators who least create the need for it.

Alternatives?

A fair and sustainable industry funding model would see a balance between the interest all registered liquidators have in the efficient regulation of the corporate sector and the costs of regulation being borne by those "high-risk" registered liquidators who are conflicted, incompetent, or charge excessive fees. A compelling case might be made for the recovery of (at least) part of the costs of ASIC's enforcement activities through the imposition of fines. Such an approach would see unregistered pre-insolvency advisers bear some of the regulatory burden.

Further options in addition to those discussed in the Funding Model should be considered, with a view to arriving at a model that supports trust and confidence in the profession without placing an undue burden on all insolvency practitioners, who already fund self-regulation.

Mark Hilton

I walk with honour in dark places. Take my hand. We've got this.

Mark Hilton Partner

Mark specialises in banking recovery, including all forms of consumer and corporate recovery and insolvency. He has acted for banks and other financial institutions, receivers, liquidators and administrators for over 28 years.

Mark is a leading insolvency lawyer who has been involved in some of Australia's largest and most complex insolvency matters over the past decade.

He is known for his solid relationships with Australia's Big 4 Banks, as well as his expertise in recovery and enforcement, and litigation and dispute resolution.

Clients call upon Mark for his industry knowledge, achieved from being exposed to businesses across a spectrum of industries such as aged care, banking and financial services, retail, property development, manufacturing, pharmaceutical and infrastructure.

His background in commercial litigation has provided a basis for a substantial practice involving the recovery of loss associated with negligent valuations in connection with securitised loans.

Mark's willingness to embrace innovation is, among other things, evidenced by his coordination of the establishment of recovery extranets to assist financial institutions to monitor the status of recovery and enforcement action on secured and unsecured lending transactions.

">
see my profile
John Poulsen

We use our expertise and experience to solve our clients' problems.

John Poulsen Senior Associate

John acts for banks and insolvency practitioners on all security enforcement and recovery matters.

John is a senior associate in our Brisbane office and specialises in the resolution of banking and insolvency disputes. John has experience in personal and corporate insolvency, commercial litigation in both Federal and State Courts, professional negligence claims, public examinations, and farm debt mediation in Queensland and New South Wales. John has experience across many sectors including commercial, rural and residential property, hotels, retail, and mining services.

John has recently completed secondments to the Dispute Resolution Group and RBB Legal Team, Compliance, Legal & Secretariat, Westpac Banking Corporation, in Sydney and to Resolution Advisory Services, BOQ Group Legal & Secretariat, Bank of Queensland Limited, in Brisbane.

As part of HDY's Pro Bono program, John volunteers at LawRight's Self Representation Service providing free legal advice and assistance to self-represented parties through the course of their civil proceedings in the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. 

">
see my profile
Mark Schneider

Achieving our clients' business goals drives our strategy and advice. It's what we do.

Mark Schneider Partner

Mark is the partner responsible for managing our Brisbane office. He has broad experience in corporate restructuring, insolvency and banking and general commercial litigation. Mark specialises in resolving disputes, advising both banks and insolvency practitioners in relation to all aspects of the enforcement of securities and the realisation of distressed assets in Australia and internationally.

Mark has advised insolvency practitioners, secured and unsecured creditors including financial institutions and directors in relation to debt recovery, security enforcement, restructuring, formal insolvency procedures and dispute resolution throughout Australia and in Europe.

He takes pride in helping banks, financiers and their appointees implement practical strategies for resolving disputes, enforcing securities and realising distressed assets in Australia and internationally.

Mark regularly advises on secured creditors' rights, including undertaking complex security reviews and the intensive management of complex and sensitive debt positions.

Mark is sought out by clients involved in potential disputes who are concerned about protecting their reputation. He is experienced with alternative dispute resolution as well as appearing and instructing in the State and Federal Courts, including at Appellate level.

Mark has experience in many industry sectors including commercial, rural and residential property, hotels and leisure, retail, energy and resources (including mining services).

">
see my profile