BANKRUPTCY MEETINGS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8316, 20 December 1906, Page 6

BANKRUPTCY MEETINGS.

THE QUESTION OF PRIVACY

EXPLAINED

At a meeting of creditors in the bankrupt estate of R. J. Hodgins, held in the Masterton Courthouse, yesterday morning, a brief but interesting discussion arose as to the right of the public to be present at such meetings. Mr H. C. Robinson asked that all persons except creditors and their proxies and, legal representatives be excluded from the meeting. This was in accordance with the law. Section 94 of the Bankruptcy Act provided for meetings of creditors. These meetings were summoned by private circular to the creditors, except the first meeting, which it was obviously necessary to advertise. Section 124 provided that the creditors or assignee could require a public examination of the bankrupt. This took place in open court, and was quite a distinct thing from a creditors' meeting. The main purpose of a creditors' meeting was to discuss the best method of realising the estate. It was a business meeting, and an essential of successful business was the right of privacy. If a precedent was required it was only necessary to refer to the recent H. S. Izard Estate meeting at Greytown. At that meeting the question was raised by the bankrupt's counsel, who stated that unless the public were excluded his client would decline to answer questions. The counsel there present agreed not only as to the legality of the contention, but, also, as to its fairness and as to the advisability in the interests of creditors of tiaking up the position most favourable' to the obtaining of immediate information. The fact that the representative Bar that came to this conclusion included two leading barristers, who were esteemed throughout the Jwhole colony, equally for their known probity as for their ability, was a sufficient guarantee that what was decided upon was decided upon honourably and in accordance with the law, and that the meeting generally was conducted decently and in order. Any suggestion to the contrary constituted a general reflection upon a profession, the ipembers of which throughout the colony generally occupied a high and honourable standing, and could only have been made as the result of an utter misunderstanding of the true legal position. Mr B. J. Dolan . agreed with the legality of the position as stated by Mr Robinson, and, in regard to the meeting at Greytown, said that the object of the proceedings in private was to assist the tracing of large amounts of trust funds.

The D.O.A. said he thought he had a discretionary power in the matter, and was satisfied that he had properly exercised it at the meeting of creditors in H. S. Izard's Estate, but in the present instance he did not see any reason for excluding the public.

Mr . Robinson said since it was admitted that the public had no absolute right of admission to creditors' meetings, he would withdraw his ■objection.