❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks details on payouts, fees, and complaints related to the Finance Brokers Scandal compensation fund. The Minister's response provides figures, clarifies roles, and expresses satisfaction with the process.
AnsweredQoN 5580Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) What is the total amount that has been paid out to the victims of the Finance Brokers Scandal, as of 15 October 2007?
(2) What amount was paid as legal fees to the facilitating consulting firm IMF and any other legal consultant in the matter?
(3) What is the average percentage of the investment of a victim that was covered by the pay out?
(4) How many complaints has IMF received about the compensation payment?
(5) Did the Minister monitor how IMF dealt with any complaints received?
(6) If yes to (5), how?
(7) If no to (5), why not?
(8) How many complaints has the Department for Consumer Protection received about the payments?
(9) How many of the complaints at (8), are yet to be resolved?
(10) Has IMF requested any additional money related to the handling of the Finance Broker Scandal?
(11) If yes to (10), how much?
(12) Did the Department pay any additional money to IMF after the initially agreed fees of $3.4 million, for example, the handling of complaints or related services?
(13) If yes to (12), how much was paid?
(14) Is the Minister satisfied with the outcome of this process?
(2) What amount was paid as legal fees to the facilitating consulting firm IMF and any other legal consultant in the matter?
(3) What is the average percentage of the investment of a victim that was covered by the pay out?
(4) How many complaints has IMF received about the compensation payment?
(5) Did the Minister monitor how IMF dealt with any complaints received?
(6) If yes to (5), how?
(7) If no to (5), why not?
(8) How many complaints has the Department for Consumer Protection received about the payments?
(9) How many of the complaints at (8), are yet to be resolved?
(10) Has IMF requested any additional money related to the handling of the Finance Broker Scandal?
(11) If yes to (10), how much?
(12) Did the Department pay any additional money to IMF after the initially agreed fees of $3.4 million, for example, the handling of complaints or related services?
(13) If yes to (12), how much was paid?
(14) Is the Minister satisfied with the outcome of this process?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
22 November 2007
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Consumer Protection
Response time
35 days
The Minister for Consumer Protection has advised the following:
(1) $26.6 million
(2) The $26.6 million was part of a $30 million compensation package in respect of the losses of finance broker victims, achieved after lengthy negotiations with IMF and conditioned upon the
Van Stokkum
action being discontinued with no order as to costs. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund and of the $30 million, received $3.4 million. $1.4 million of that $3.4 million was the amount of disbursements which, so IMF advised Government in September 2006, the
Van Stokkum
claimants were contractually obliged to pay IMF in the event of a settlement of the
Van Stokkum
action. It is assumed that the $1.4 million included IMF's legal expenses actually paid out by IMF on behalf of the
Van Stokkum
plaintiffs and attributable to the
Van Stokkum
litigation. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from
Van Stokkum
plaintiffs had IMF not been precluded by Government, as a term of the action's resolution, from applying its contractual arrangements with them. Otherwise, no fees, including legal fees, were paid to IMF or to any other consultant.
(3) Successful claimants received approximately 20% of their established claim amount.
(4) It is not clear what is intended by the reference to complaints received by IMF about the compensation payment. However, I understand that one claimant disagreed with IMF's initial assessment of whether their claim met the fund criteria for compensation and that in accordance with the fund arrangements the matter was referred to, and determined by, the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP). I understand that, subsequent to the compensation cheques being issued, in some instances, claimants have reported not receiving cheques and requested they be reissued; queried the payment amounts; and encountered difficulty in banking compensation cheques because of complications such as claimant's death, the involvement of a trust and companies being deregistered. DOCEP advises that 24 cheques have been reissued on this basis.
(5) No.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Responsibility for administration of the compensation fund lay contractually with IMF. However, it was open to any claimant dissatisfied with IMF's administration of the fund to contact DOCEP or my office. Both IMF and the State were contractually obliged to comply with the fund arrangements and to do so as soon as was reasonably practicable.
(8) It is not clear what is intended by reference to complaints received by DOCEP about the compensation payment. However, the matters noted in the response to (4) above have been the subject of liaison between DOCEP and, as appropriate, IMF and/or the affected claimants. These matters have been actioned by DOCEP as quickly as possible and, in the majority of instances, have already been resolved.
(9) While it is not clear what is intended by reference to complaints, steps are currently being taken resolve two claims complicated by the claimant companies being deregistered and one other claim where cheques need to be reissued to co-claimants who have undergone separation.
(10) No.
(11) Not applicable.
(12) No.
(13) Not applicable.
(14) Yes.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(1) $26.6 million
(2) The $26.6 million was part of a $30 million compensation package in respect of the losses of finance broker victims, achieved after lengthy negotiations with IMF and conditioned upon the
Van Stokkum
action being discontinued with no order as to costs. IMF agreed to undertake the considerable task of administering the fund and of the $30 million, received $3.4 million. $1.4 million of that $3.4 million was the amount of disbursements which, so IMF advised Government in September 2006, the
Van Stokkum
claimants were contractually obliged to pay IMF in the event of a settlement of the
Van Stokkum
action. It is assumed that the $1.4 million included IMF's legal expenses actually paid out by IMF on behalf of the
Van Stokkum
plaintiffs and attributable to the
Van Stokkum
litigation. The $3.4 million was significantly less than the amount to which IMF would have been entitled from
Van Stokkum
plaintiffs had IMF not been precluded by Government, as a term of the action's resolution, from applying its contractual arrangements with them. Otherwise, no fees, including legal fees, were paid to IMF or to any other consultant.
(3) Successful claimants received approximately 20% of their established claim amount.
(4) It is not clear what is intended by the reference to complaints received by IMF about the compensation payment. However, I understand that one claimant disagreed with IMF's initial assessment of whether their claim met the fund criteria for compensation and that in accordance with the fund arrangements the matter was referred to, and determined by, the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection (DOCEP). I understand that, subsequent to the compensation cheques being issued, in some instances, claimants have reported not receiving cheques and requested they be reissued; queried the payment amounts; and encountered difficulty in banking compensation cheques because of complications such as claimant's death, the involvement of a trust and companies being deregistered. DOCEP advises that 24 cheques have been reissued on this basis.
(5) No.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) Responsibility for administration of the compensation fund lay contractually with IMF. However, it was open to any claimant dissatisfied with IMF's administration of the fund to contact DOCEP or my office. Both IMF and the State were contractually obliged to comply with the fund arrangements and to do so as soon as was reasonably practicable.
(8) It is not clear what is intended by reference to complaints received by DOCEP about the compensation payment. However, the matters noted in the response to (4) above have been the subject of liaison between DOCEP and, as appropriate, IMF and/or the affected claimants. These matters have been actioned by DOCEP as quickly as possible and, in the majority of instances, have already been resolved.
(9) While it is not clear what is intended by reference to complaints, steps are currently being taken resolve two claims complicated by the claimant companies being deregistered and one other claim where cheques need to be reissued to co-claimants who have undergone separation.
(10) No.
(11) Not applicable.
(12) No.
(13) Not applicable.
(14) Yes.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.