天美影院

This Order is made in relation to a complaint that David Hughes breached the Fundamental Principle of Professional Competence and Due Care of the Insolvency Code of Ethics, when;

Allegation 1: 聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽

a) 聽He failed to submit monthly bordereau returns to the IPA in accordance with The Insolvency Practitioner Regulations 2005;聽

b) 聽In his role as liquidator of one company, he failed to:聽

1. 聽publish a notice of his appointment in the Gazette, and deliver a notice of his appointment to the Registrar of Companies in breach of S109(1) Insolvency Act 1986;

2. 聽advertise a notice of intention to declare a dividend in breach of Rule 14.28 Insolvency Rules (IR) 16;

3. 聽deliver notice of intention to declare a dividend in breach of Rule 14.29 IR 16.

c) 聽In his role as liquidator of three companies, he failed to file progress reports within two months of the period end in breach of Rules 18.7 (6) and 18.8 (5) IR16.

e) 聽In his role as liquidator of one company he failed to:

1. 聽progress the liquidation in a timely manner;

2. 聽file notice of his appointment with Registrar of Companies as soon as reasonably practicable in breach of Rule 4.106A (4) the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2010;

3. 聽advertise and deliver a notice of intention to declare a dividend in breach of Rule14.28 and Rule 14.29 IR 16.

f) 聽In breach of Rule 18.7 (6) IR16, he failed to:

1.聽聽prepare or send annual progress reports to the Registrar of Companies in no less than eight cases;

1. 聽聽 issue 19 annual progress reports (across no less than 13 cases) in a timely manner.

g) In his role as supervisor of an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) he failed to:

1.聽 pay an equalising dividend in a timely manner, and;聽聽

1. distribute funds in accordance with the IVA proposal.

Allegation 2: 聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽

In his role as liquidator of two companies he failed, contrary to the provisions of Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 11, to have appropriate safeguards in place to clearly differentiate and segregate estate money, client money and the money belonging to the entity in which he was working.

Accordingly, Mr Hughes was found liable to disciplinary action under the IPA鈥檚 Articles of Association.