The Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the trustee of Stocks and Securities Limited (SSL), Caydion Campbell, have reached common ground on the contents of the trustee’s report which will be presented at a meeting of creditors and applicants on October 25.

Campbell had been required to prepare a directors’ report by Judge David Batts after he was reinstated in his role at the end of May, with the report detailing the state of the company. This report was submitted on September 25, one day before the public hearing. The FSC, through its new lawyer Symone Mayhew, had objected to the publication of the trustee’s report in its current form, based on what it had glimpsed at that time.

After nearly three hours of deliberations, Mayhew and Campbell’s lawyer, Caroline Hay, managed to break the impasse with Campbell to amend the existing report into a format more consistent with Insolvency Act regulations. This edited report was due to be submitted on Tuesday and a two-hour hearing would be held on Thursday to discuss, among other things, whether the FSC had any new objections to the edited report.

“This is not just a complaint of semantics, My Lord. This is a report he wants to send to creditors. “That is why, My Lord, we are vehemently opposed to a report in this form being made to the creditors, but we also say, My Lord, that the report to the creditors is an entirely different report…” Mayhew said in his speech opening on the trustee. report.

The FSC had requested that the trustee’s report be sealed at the September 26 hearing due to concerns over the presentation of the report. This was based on the view that the report went beyond the scope of certain sections of the Companies Act and its possible erosion of confidence in the financial sector regulator. Senior counsel delved into different sections of the report while giving verbatim different cases in other jurisdictions to refer to different sections of existing Jamaican regulations.

“I accept that there is certainly an overlap between what would be in the report to the court and what would be in the report to the creditors. Again, My Lord, the manner of presentation and certainly that which the trustee provided to the court is much broader than what is contemplated by Article 39 of the Insolvency Regulations. So while My Lord, some of the information is the same, we will say that as currently prepared, this attorney’s report provided to the court would contravene Regulation 39 and given the manner in which the information was presented, My Lord, we “We submit that, as presented, it would certainly mislead creditors and would not be in the interests of the bankruptcy estate or certainly not in the interests of justice,” Mayhew explained regarding his views on the report.

Section 233 of the Companies Act deals with the trustee’s report and the obligation to submit a preliminary report to the court, while section 39 of the Insolvency Regulations of the Insolvency Act also deals with the preliminary report to be submitted at the first meetings of creditors. Although both sections deal with the trustee’s report, the interpretation and application were both debated by the two lead attorneys.

Hay presented in his remarks that different sections of Campbell’s initial report complied with different paragraphs of section 233 of the Corporations Act. She also questioned the practicality of the FSC’s request for there to be a second report to extract certain parts they disagreed with. This decision was based on consideration of the additional costs to be incurred in the event of a split report while the first meeting of creditors had not yet been heard.

“Having regard to the present circumstances and the applicability of the court’s order, the determination to be made as to appropriateness and sufficiency, and not to style and presentation, must be determined with reference both to rule 39 of the Insolvency Regulations and section 233 (Companies Act). together. Given the imperative for the court to do justice in practice, we suggest that the best approach would be to check whether the content of Article 233 appears in the final report and whether the content of Regulation 39 also appears in the final report . Bearing in mind the court’s earlier observation that it is the creditors who are in charge,” Hay questioned when discussing the Campbell report.

Batts finally mentioned the Bob Marley case which eventually came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and explained that the trustee should be attentive to any situation and not be partisan.

Regarding Campbell’s request for management fees, he refused this request until the first meeting of creditors was held. Once this meeting is held, he could review the decision concerning the fees which will be likely to be used to satisfy his fees.

Hay and Tereece Campbell Wong of Caroline P. Hay, attorneys, represent Campbell. Mayhew for Mayhew Law represents FSC. A lawyer from the Office of the Insolvency Supervisor (OSI) observed the proceedings.