Peter Amos.
When a professional transgresses and regulators impose the requisite penalties it sometimes signals not so much an end to the matter as a green light for the commencement of a secondary round of censure.
In this day and age professional associations have their own disciplinary procedures independent of conduct’s primary arbiters.
When a member is sanctioned by a regulator those associations to which the transgressor has membership dust off their professional conduct manuals, issue show cause notices and, if the response is unsatisfactory or absent, convene committees to deliberate on penalty.
In recent times there’s been two registered liquidators subject to this double whammy.
South Australian based liquidator Peter Macks, whose registration was suspended by court order for a period of three years in February 2021 has more recently been subjected to further punishment meted out by Chartered Accountants Australia New Zealand (CAANZ).
In a decision of the CAANZ Disciplinary Tribunal Macks was found to have brought discredit upon himself, CAANZ and the accounting profession, which is no mean feat.
The tribunal determined that his membership be suspended until February 2024 and “imposed a cost sanction in the sum of $26,735 for the full costs and expenses of the proceedings”. (For the full story on Mack’s fall from grace see further reading below.)
CAANZ however isn’t the only professional association that’s had to apply its own brand of punishment to an erring member.
Over at the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) they’ve been busy deliberating on what penalty to inflict on liquidator Peter Amos following the imposition by ASIC of a condition on Amos’s registration preventing him from accepting new appointments.
When contacted Amos told iNO he had no comment to make. ASIC took the action in respect of alleged breaches of subsection 40-15(2) of the – Insolvency Practice Schedule.
Under that section “ASIC may give direction not to accept further appointments
(1) ASIC may, in writing, direct a registered liquidator not to accept any further appointments under Chapter 5 (external administration), or not to accept any further appointments under Chapter 5 during a period specified in the direction, if:
(a) the liquidator has failed to comply with a direction given to the liquidator under section 40- 5 (direction to remedy failure to lodge documents, or give information or documents); or
(b) the liquidator has failed to comply with a direction given to the liquidator under section 40- 10 (direction to correct inaccuracies); or
(c) a committee has decided under paragraph 40-55(1)(d) that ASIC should give the direction referred to in that paragraph; or
(d) the liquidator has failed to comply with a direction given to the liquidator under section 70– 70 (direction to give relevant material); or
(e) the liquidator has failed to comply with a direction given to the liquidator under subsection 75-20(1) or (2), or subsection 80-27(1) (direction to convene a meeting of creditors or comply with requirements in relation to such a meeting).”
ASIC declined to say when or if the condition would be lifted but it was enough for ARITA Professional Conduct Committee, which terminated Amos’s pursuant to clause 8.7(b) of the ARITA Constitution for “failing to provide a reasonable response to ARITA’s inquiries regarding concerns identified in relation to one of his appointments”.
According to ARITA “The PCC had previously determined that an independent quality review be undertaken in relation to the identified appointment, however as a result of Mr Amos’ failure to cooperate with the review within the set timeframes, he was recorded as having failed the quality review.” (See: https://www.arita.com.au/ARITA/News/ARITA_News/Termination_of_ARITA_Membership___Mr_Peter_Amos.aspx).
Further reading:
Be the first to comment on "Professional associations axe transgressors"