Insolvency regulation reform

The Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer have released an options paper "A Modernisation and Harmonisation of the Regulatory Framework Applying to Insolvency Practitioners in Australia " which seeks views on various proposals for significant regulatory reform of Australia's insolvency industry. The Options Paper responds to the Senate Committee's report, The regulation, registration and remuneration of insolvency practitioners in Australia: the case for a new framework, which was released on 14 September 2010. The Senate Committee recommended that the corporate insolvency arm of ASIC be transferred to ITSA to form a new personal and corporate insolvency regulator. The Government will not be accepting this recommendation but the paper examines other options for greater alignment between the corporate and personal insolvency regimes where appropriate. The Senate Committee also raised concerns about the conduct of the insolvency profession in Australia, including the adequacy of efforts to monitor, regulate and discipline misconduct. The Government has decided to review the current regulatory framework applying to insolvency professionals in Australia. This paper discusses options to improve the framework, including in areas not considered by the Senate Committee, such as funds handling, record keeping and communication with creditors.

Read more detail on Recent Banking and Finance Law Posts –

Legal notice about the Insolvency regulation reform rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Insolvency regulation reform?

This entry was posted in Banking and Finance law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Insolvency regulation reform

  1. Tony says:

    . Government pcloiy on legal aid is driven by their fear of tabloid headlines and not rational pcloiy. Another example was the withdrawal of legal aid from personal injury back in 1999. All that did was encourage claims farmers to enter the market, not with a view to improving access to justice but making a profit for individual and unaccountable companies (think The Action Group here). Lord Justice jackson missed a trick in his recent review of civil litigation costs by not recommending the abolition of CFAs and their replacement by a Contingent Legal Aid Fund. That would have improved access to justice..-= Michael Scutt s last blog .. =-.

  2. Chave says:

    Howie, Our judicial stseym isn’t perfect. but it beats the hell out of whatever stseym is in second. Thank The Overseer for our Constitution!! I fear to many of our citizens are too willing to ignore it or are ignorant of it’s contents.

Leave a Reply