Boardroom Blues

New information has come to light about Ray Hocking, the BDO Stoy Hayward administrator.

It transpires that Hocking has left Stoy Hayward, and that in 1997 he was punished by the Insolvency Practitioners Association for breaking some of the profession's most basic rules.

Can of worms

Ray Hocking, a leading insolvency practitioner with BDO Stoy Hayward, has been severely reprimanded and fined a record £37,000 plus six-figure costs by the Insolvency Practitioners Association.

He has signed consent orders agreeing to charges made against him for his work as liquidator of four companies.

The charges include that he 'drew remuneration without obtaining the appropriate authority to do so', and that he 'drew remuneration in excess of the authority he was given to do so'.

Hocking, reputed to earn £1m a year in fees for Stoys, has also accepted that while acting as liquidator to another company 'he failed to take independent expert advice prior to accepting proof of debt from a major creditor in liquidation'.

The IPA also reprimanded him on a lesser charge of failing to obtain written confirmation of a proposed creditor's willingness to serve as a replacement on a liquidation committee after another member had resigned from it.

In a statement issued to Accountancy Age, the IPA said that 'undertakings have been given by both BDO Stoy Hayward and Ray Hocking regarding the operation of Mr Hocking's insolvency licence. Those undertakings have been accepted by the IPA.'

The IPA began investigating Hocking after a Joint Insolvency Monitoring Unit visit in 1995. Tony Supperstone, a senior Stoys insolvency partner, and a past IPA president, criticised the association's investigation, but refused to elaborate on what undertakings his firm and Hocking had given.

He said: 'Ray has the full support of the firm. He has been roughly treated (by the IPA).'

Supperstone said Hocking had signed the consent orders, believed to be some of the most serious ever made, instead of opting for a three-week disciplinary tribunal because the stress placed on Hocking would have been too great.

He said: 'This matter has been with us since 1996 ... but while we disputed some of the findings, we felt it best to get it authorised and out of the way.'

Supperstone said the most serious order relating to withdrawing remuneration without the creditors' permission was resolved last week, although the case dates back to 1983."