Articles - Increase in insolvency regulation will cost business


 The cost of new insolvency regulation proposed by Government will outweigh the benefits to business and reduce creditor returns, according to insolvency trade body R3.
  
 Concern has prompted R3 and senior Insolvency Practitioners from the ‘Big Four' accountancy firms (Deloitte, PwC, KPMG and Ernst & Young) to write a joint letter to the Insolvency Minister, Ed Davey MP, requesting an urgent meeting.
  
  R3 President Frances Coulson commented:
 "There is a strong consensus that something is wrong here. We support measures to give unsecured creditors more of a say, but the degree of increased regulation proposed is disproportionate and counter to Government policy to reduce red tape. The proposals are likely to reduce returns for creditors, while undermining what is good and sensible in the current system." 
  
 R3 and the ‘Big Four' are concerned that the proposals will discourage creditors from engaging during the insolvency process, while inviting them to complain after a case finishes - at a cost to other creditors. 
 Frances Coulson continued:
 "Under the new proposals, Insolvency Practitioner (IP) fees can be agreed by the majority of creditors but then challenged at the end by a minority creditor or angry director.  The cost of making a complaint is free to the complainant, and if the complaint is not upheld it will be paid for out of the insolvent estate.These new proposals give the green light to malicious complainants to hold up the process and leave unsecured creditors with nothing."
  
 R3 propose that unsecured creditors should be given greater powers over the choice of IP and that IPs should be forced to be more transparent about their fees.  Fewer regulators and more independence and consistency in the regulatory regime are also supported by the profession. 
 Frances Coulson added:
 "Some change would be beneficial, but it must be proportionate. The OFT report that prompted the Government to act found that the insolvency market and regulatory regime works well in the majority of cases but could work more effectively in a minority.  The proportionate response would be to make improvements, rather than wholesale revision." 
  
 R3 also believes that government departments, including HMRC and the Insolvency Service's own Redundancy Payments Service, should use their huge bargaining power as repeat creditors, accounting for roughly a quarter of unsecured debt, to the benefit of the general body of unsecured creditors. 
 Coulson concluded: "It is within the Government's gift to harness the market power of unsecured creditors - not by legislating, but by doing their jobs as large and repeat unsecured creditors."

Back to Index


Similar News to this Story

Skilled actuaries required
Since the upheaval of pension freedoms in 2015 when drawdown rules were relaxed and annuity sales declined, the role of actuaries in the DC space ha
A step change is expected for DB pension scheme funding
Mike Smedley, Pensions Partner at KPMG in the UK discusses some of the changes expected for DB pension scheme funding in 2019
What does the ideal actuarial consultant look like
We recently published our Navigating Change report, which looks at the changing role of the actuarial consultant. One issue that struck me was the wid

Site Search

Exact   Any  

Latest Actuarial Jobs

Actuarial Login

Email
Password
 Jobseeker    Client
Reminder Logon

APA Sponsors

Actuarial Jobs & News Feeds

Jobs RSS News RSS

WikiActuary

Be the first to contribute to our definitive actuarial reference forum. Built by actuaries for actuaries.