Policy positions of the insolvency practitioners association

 Corporate Insolvency, External administration, External administrators, Insolvency Law, Insolvency practices, Official Inquiries, Practitioners Association (ARITA)  Comments Off on Policy positions of the insolvency practitioners association
Mar 052015
 

A set of “policy positions” on insolvency law and practice has just been issued by Australia’s insolvency practitioners association – the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA).

The policies are titled:

  • Policy 15-01: ARITA Law Reform Objectives (Corporate)
  • Policy 15-02: Aims of insolvency law
  • Policy 15-03: Current Australian corporate restructuring, insolvency and turnaround regime and the need for change
  • Policy 15-04: Creation of a Restructuring Moratorium (Safe Harbour)
  • Policy 15-05: Stronger regulation of directors and creation of a director identification number
  • Policy 15-06: Advocate for Informal Restructuring
  • Policy 15-07: Reworked Schemes/Voluntary Administration regimes to aid in the rehabilitation of large enterprises in financial distress
  • Policy 15-08: Extension of moratorium to ipso facto clauses
  • Policy 15-09: Streamlined Liquidation for Micro Companies
  • Policy 15-10: Micro Restructuring
  • Policy 15-11: Pre-positioned sales

ARITA’s 17-page paper – named Policy Positions of the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association – is the final version of its discussion paper, A Platform for Recovery 2014.  It is attached to its submission on 2 March 2015 to the Productivity Commission’s public inquiry into ” barriers to setting up, transferring and closing a business”.

It seems ARITA’s policy positions paper is not yet (mid-day 5/3/15) published as a separate document on ARITA’s website.  However, I have created a copy, which is available on my website now.

ARITA’S full 59-page submission to the Productivity Commission is available on its site, as is its useful summary of the key points made in the submission. ARITA says that the policies in the Policy Positions paper form the key basis of ARITA’s submission to the Productivity Commission.

 

Other link: To the website of the Productivity Commission’s  Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure inquiry.

Government says no to single regulator of insolvency laws

 ASIC, Official Inquiries, Personal Bankruptcy, Productivity Commission 2010, Regulation  Comments Off on Government says no to single regulator of insolvency laws
Oct 142011
 

The Government has examined the case for making one regulator responsible for both personal insolvency laws and corporate insolvency laws and decided to retain the status quo. 

Hence, it will be business as usual for the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia (personal insolvency) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (corporate insolvency).

The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) recommended in its report on the Annual Review of Regulatory Burdens on Business: Business and Consumer Services (the Report) that the Government consider the option of having a single regulator of what are, in many respects, similar laws. 

In response to this recommendation (part of number 4.3), the Government says:

“The Government is not proposing to establish a new single regulator of personal and corporate insolvency regimes. There would be major upfront costs of merging the regulators, which may not necessarily be offset by long-term savings.  The extent to which simply unifying the regulators would result in an improved regulatory environment is not clear.  Separate policy considerations apply to many aspects of personal and corporate insolvencies and there is not currently sufficient evidence that a one-size-fits-all approach for all issues would necessarily optimise outcomes for stakeholders.  The removal of the responsibility for regulation of corporate insolvency from the corporate regulator would result in corporate insolvency losing its important connection with other parts of ASIC, for example in relation to major corporate administrations, regulation of insolvent trading and of director and corporate misconduct that may have occurred in the lead up to, or during, an insolvency event.”

  The Government’s formal response to the Report was released by the APC on 13 October 2011 and may be found HERE.

Government says taskforce to align insolvency laws is unnecessary

 Official Inquiries, Productivity Commission 2010, Regulation  Comments Off on Government says taskforce to align insolvency laws is unnecessary
Oct 142011
 

The Australian Productivity Commission (APC) recommendation that a taskforce  be established to identify personal and corporate insolvency provisions and processes that could be aligned has been formally rejected by the Government.

The APC recommendations were made in its report in October 2010 on the Annual Review of Regulatory Burdens on Business: Business and Consumer Services (the Report). The Government’s formal response to the Report was released by the APC on 13 October 2011 and may be found HERE.

 In response to the APC’s recommendation (number 4.3) for a taskforce, the Government says that it:

” agrees that there should be greater consistency between the personal and corporate insolvency systems. Significant work is already being progressed by relevant government agencies to identify areas for greater harmonisation, and therefore the Government believes that establishing a taskforce is unnecessary and may duplicate work already being undertaken.  The Government will facilitate the closer alignment of the personal and corporate insolvency laws through its options paper, A Modernisation and Harmonisation of the Regulatory Framework Applying to Insolvency Practitioners in Australia, which was released on 2 June 2011.  This paper canvasses options for the registration, regulation and remuneration of participants in the corporate and personal insolvency industries.”