
Regulation of firms offering insolvency services
Further to my earlier post on insolvency practitioner (IP) regulation in the UK, and contrary to expectations,[1] the UK government has backed away from replacing

Further to my earlier post on insolvency practitioner (IP) regulation in the UK, and contrary to expectations,[1] the UK government has backed away from replacing

Evidence before the Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry into Ethics and Professional Accountability [1] (PJC inquiry) may assist in considering the gender imbalance recommendation of the

Following the appointment by the New Zealand High Court of Australian voluntary administrators of Probis as New Zealand interim liquidators of one of Probis’ creditors,

This is a brief response to a well-researched and thoughtful article by Associate Professor Mark Wellard – Insolvent Trading: Director Accountability for Minimal Returns to

“ … the state is, effectively, paying insolvency practitioners to end the life of small companies … a sub-optimal solution ….” “the standard liquidation process

The ACCC has issued new penalty guidelines – Guidelines on ACCC approach to penalties in competition and consumer law matters Three queries from my perspective One,

I was invited to present at the INSOL International Academic Colloquium on 12 September 2023 in Tokyo on the panel concerning ‘Insolvency Professionals’, along with

Litigation claims brought by insolvency practitioners (IPs) are not like the usual commercial claims on behalf of a commercial, or government, client. Despite marginal returns

In Insolvency licensing bodies confirmed for New Zealand’s new regulatory regime – Murrays Legal, of August 2020, I explained the new liquidator licensing regime in

This commentary has now been updated. See The cross-border regulation of insolvency practitioners – Murrays Legal ============================================== I was pleased to speak at the INSOL

A court decision concerning insolvency practitioner independence and pre-insolvency advice usefully raises issues recommended for law reform review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee Report on

The Federal Court has fined BlueScope Steel $57 million for cartel conduct under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), after attempting to collude

There was a total of 9,930 personal insolvencies in Australia in the 2022–23 financial year – around 4% higher than the 2021–22 annual figure of

The federal government has announced it will stop its Modernising Business Registers (MBR) program following independent review findings that the program could not deliver value

The Supreme Court of New Zealand has dismissed directors’ appeals from a finding that they must pay over NZ$6 million and up to NZ$39.8 million

Mr Adam Cranston has been sentenced to 15 years jail for his involvement in conspiracies to deprive the Commissioner of Taxation of over $105m in

ASIC has lost a major Federal Court proceeding brought against a senior and experienced liquidator, Jason Bettles, alleging that his conduct “constituted so gross a

The full article on this topic of 1800 words, for those interested, looks that the PJC Report recommendations about “untrustworthy pre-insolvency advisers”. It is Part

The PJC Report on Corporate Insolvency 2023 has responded to concerns expressed about “untrustworthy pre-insolvency advisers”, those that are said to offer and facilitate unlawful

Updated 14.8.23: While pondering the 2023 Parliamentary Joint Committee’s recommendations about pre-insolvency advisers, I am reminded to go back to some earlier comments that in

In my comments of July 2023 following, I reviewed the 2022 call for evidence in the UK on reform of the personal insolvency system. The

While the government is thinking about the various recommendations of the PJC Report[1] about improving our current corporate insolvency laws, I have been trying to

ASIC is in the process of updating 4 of its regulatory guides on insolvency, in the next few months, and consulting on 2 new ones.

While much is made of the “record penalties of $438m” penalties imposed on the Phoenix Institute and related companies for egregious conduct in relation to