❓ A parliamentary question addresses the WA government's decision to have IMF administer a compensation package for victims of a finance broker scandal, questioning the validity of IMF's disbursement costs and access to the compensation fund.
AnsweredQoN 120Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FINANCE BROKERS - INSOLVENCY MANAGEMENT FUND
(1) Why is the litigation funder IMF administering the $30 million compensation package to the victims of the finance brokers scandal rather than the government? (2) Has the government assessed the validity of IMF’s claimed disbursement costs of $1.4 million thus far; and, if not, why not? (3) If yes to (2), who was responsible for undertaking the assessment? (4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD
(1) Why is the litigation funder IMF administering the $30 million compensation package to the victims of the finance brokers scandal rather than the government? (2) Has the government assessed the validity of IMF’s claimed disbursement costs of $1.4 million thus far; and, if not, why not? (3) If yes to (2), who was responsible for undertaking the assessment? (4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(2) Has the government assessed the validity of IMF’s claimed disbursement costs of $1.4 million thus far; and, if not, why not? (3) If yes to (2), who was responsible for undertaking the assessment? (4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(3) If yes to (2), who was responsible for undertaking the assessment? (4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
[See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance.
4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(2) Has the government assessed the validity of IMF’s claimed disbursement costs of $1.4 million thus far; and, if not, why not? (3) If yes to (2), who was responsible for undertaking the assessment? (4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(3) If yes to (2), who was responsible for undertaking the assessment? (4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(4) Will the minister table the disbursement cost estimates; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
(5) Will the minister table the list of the 2 100 finance broking victims known to the government and explain why people not already on the list of the 2 100 with IMF should now be given an opportunity to join the claim for compensation having failed to come forward in more than five years? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer Protection has provided the following answer, which is quite lengthy; it is two pages in all. I table the answer and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Leave granted. [See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
[See paper 2583.] The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
The following material was incorporated - The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
The Minister’s answer is as follows: I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
I thank the Member for his interest in this matter particularly the interest revealed during the hearings by the Corruption and Crime Commission. 1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
1. In view of IMF’s long involvement with the majority of the anticipated claimants, it was considered that administration of the fund by IMF would be cost effective and, significantly, would achieve a more rapid distribution of the compensation. 2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
2. The $1.4 million was described by IMF as the monies at that stage (September 2006) actually paid out by IMF on behalf of those plaintiffs and attributable to the Van Stokkum litigation. In later correspondence IMF stated that its disbursements attributable to Van Stokkum by then exceeded $1.4 million. The issue for Government was the amount which ought fairly be set aside to compensate finance broker victims generally but which would at the same time resolve the Van Stokkum action and ensure that the return to plaintiffs funded by IMF was maximised. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund. The entirety of the balance was to go directly to investors and the litigation would be brought to an end. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from Van Stokkum plaintiffs had it been permitted by Government, upon resolution of the action, to apply its contractual arrangements with them. IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
IMF specifically advised Government that its disbursements attributable to the Van Stokkum action were at least $1.4 million, and the Government has accepted that assurance.
4. Not applicable. 5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
5. The Government is not in a position to table the requested list. Which victims will benefit will depend upon whether there is the requisite endorsement by Van Stokkum plaintiffs of the compensation scheme and upon the outcome of the process for determining eligibility for compensation from the fund established. The fund was established as an ex gratia fund intended to compensate investors who lost money as a result of the blameworthy conduct of finance brokers and their advisers. It was not intended to compensate only investors who had commenced legal proceedings. Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Surely the Member is not suggesting otherwise.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.