co-regulation
NZ insolvency practitioner sanctioned
A sanction of a New Zealand liquidator for the poor handling of his matters provides an illustration of New Zealand’s
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
UK insolvency practitioners to come under direct government regulation
At the same time that the chair of the Australian PJC inquiry into corporate insolvency, Senator Deborah O’Neill, said that
Insolvency practitioner regulation – an Australian story
With the UK government rethinking the regulation of its insolvency practitioners (IPs), moving away from co-regulation to a system more
The potential for conflicts of interest in professional co-regulation
Referrals to a disciplinary committee of two senior insolvency practitioners with connections prompt my further explanations of Australia’s insolvency practitioner
Regulation of insolvency practitioners by accounting bodies
The outcomes of co-regulation of UK insolvency practitioners are explained in a May 2020 report of the ICAEW, with some
A review of Australia’s insolvency practitioner regulation system
Given a choice between a good insolvency law and poor practitioners, and good practitioners and a poor insolvency law, the
Regulation of Australian insolvency practitioners – UK and NZ compared
I am pleased to be soon presenting to various groups on the regulation of Australian insolvency practitioners, with some comparisons
Whistleblowing, as a means of professional regulation?
The use of whistleblowers in the regulation of tax and corporate law, and the bases for incentivizing and protecting them, are
Another new co-regulation regime for insolvency practitioners – NZ, following the UK and India
Just as India has introduced co-regulation of its new breed of insolvency practitioners, so has New Zealand acted on a
