I move amendment No. 102 :
In subsection (4) to delete from " and in any other case " to the end of the subsection.
This is a simple amendment. The text of the Bill before the Committee takes into account words in an original draft which have been omitted. Therefore, in order to make the section read properly, the words now proposed to be deleted will have to be omitted as well.
This is a new section. It merely specifies the contents of the statement to be submitted to the receiver under the previous section, and the persons who must make it out.
This imposes an obligation on the officers of the company, in the absence of the directors, to deliver a statement of the assets and liabilties to the receiver. I should like to clear my mind on this. Who do we understand to be the officers of the company ?
We dealt with a provision similar to this in the case of a liquidator, Section 224.
Is there not a definition of " officer " ?
There is a general definition in Section 2. We cannot spell it out in too much detail.
I would imagine that the sort of circumstances that could arise on this section is where the auditors of a company might be required by a receiver to give information, where the auditors might be the only people left in a position to inform the receivers of the situation. They would be required by this section, in some cases perhaps, to do a considerable amount of work, making up the books, preparing the statements, perhaps going through a great deal of documents, in order to carry out their statutory obligation. They are to be paid for that, but they are to be paid for that only the amount which the receiver or his successor may consider reasonable. That is giving a pretty strong power to the receiver without any right of appeal. I wonder should we give a right to apply to the court against the receiver's decision on that ?
I think that is not unreasonable and I shall consider providing for it.
