Mind the insolvency gap : lessons to be learned from audit expectations gap theory

There is a general perception that public confidence in the insolvency profession is low as the result of the recent unethical practices of a few high profile liquidators. As a result, the effectiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms has been questioned, leading to a review of the performance of insolvency practitioners and subsequent regulation proposals. The challenge for the insolvency profession is balancing the expectations of the general public whilst ensuring that the obligations and duties imposed upon them are performed to acceptable and realistic standards. It is difficult (if not impossible) for the profession to meet this challenge in the absence of a cohesive framework which identifies those issues that require further regulation as opposed to those that relate to general education on the insolvency process. This paper will examine the audit expectations gap theory in the context of insolvency practitioners and suggests that a model based on this theory provides an effective framework for evaluating the regulation of the insolvency industry.

Cross-Border Insolvency Law

This new work provides a comprehensive and theoretically rich discussion of the law on cross-border insolvency. It engages with several current multi-billion dollar insolvencies such as those of Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers to provide the reader with state of the art knowledge of the complex problems posed by transnational insolvency. As the number of transnational insolvencies grows due to prevailing economic conditions, practitioners are increasingly required to navigate the mass of legal rules applicable to cross-border insolvency situations. The associated challenges are heightened by the diversity of legal structures employed by modern business entities and a patchwork of costly, inefficient, and unpredictable national legal rules. The response has been a proliferation of international legal instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law and the the EU Insolvency Regulation, supplemented by judicial practice, adding further layers of complexity. Writing from an Australian perspective, the authors analyse this network of legal rules and subsequent case law. In addition, they explain the theoretical underpinnings of these rules in an accessible manner to build a solid foundation for practice, facilitate advanced reasoning, and enable the development of sophisticated arguments for law reform. Comparative case law from jurisdictions such as the United States and United Kingdom is also included. This book is highly relevant to insolvency practitioners faced with the recovery of assets located in different jurisdictions, transactional lawyers for whom knowledge of potential insolvency pitfalls is essential, and academics. It is invaluable for students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level seeking a sound understanding of this challenging area of law.

(Failed) voluntary euthanasia law reform in Australia: Two decades of trends, models and politics

Within Australia, there have been many attempts to pass voluntary euthanasia (VE) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legislation. From 16 June 1993 until the date of writing, 51 Bills have been introduced into Australian parliaments dealing with legalising VE or PAS. Despite these numerous attempts, the only successful Bill was the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT), which was enacted in the Northern Territory, but a short time later overturned by the controversial Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth). Yet, in stark contrast to the significant political opposition, for decades Australian public opinion has overwhelmingly supported law reform legalising VE or PAS. While there is ongoing debate in Australia, both through public discourse and scholarly publications, about the merits and dangers of reform in this field, there has been remarkably little analysis of the numerous legislative attempts to reform the law, and the context in which those reform attempts occurred. The aim of this article is to better understand the reform landscape in Australia over the past two decades. The information provided in this article will better equip Australians, both politicians and the general public, to have a more nuanced understanding of the political context in which the euthanasia debate has been and is occurring. It will also facilitate a more informed debate in the future.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages through thresholds and caps which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Wrong way go back! Rediscovering the path for charity law reform

Problems with charity law jurisprudence persist. The difficulties arose in the 20th century and are fundamental to the way the doctrine is presently theorised. They grew out of the approach taken in Pemsel’s Case to the categorisation of the ‘spirit and intendment’ of the Preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses. Recent statutory reforms, such as the Charities Act 2006 (Eng&W), have compounded the underlying problems rather than resolving them. This paper aims to stimulate thinking about a new foundation for charity jurisprudence – while the approach may seem radical, the paper argues that these new foundations can be discerned underlying the current jurisprudence. The difficulties can be overcome by rediscovering the underlying jurisprudence which is disregarded in the current approach to categorisation. Giving voice, in contemporary language, to that foundational jurisprudence, this paper provides a way out of the current problems. It also provides an alternative way of conceptualising the doctrine of charitable purpose to guide reform.

Cutting the Gordian knot of futility : a case for law reform on unilateral withholding and withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment

In this paper, we propose law reform with respect to the unilateral withholding or withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment in Australia and New Zealand. That is, where a doctor withholds or withdraws potentially life-sustaining treatment without consent from a patient or a patient’s substitute decision-maker (where the patient lacks capacity), or authorisation from a court or tribunal, or by operation of a statute or justifiable government or institutional policy. Our proposal is grounded in the core values that do (or should) underpin a regulatory framework on an issue such as this; these values are drawn from existing commitments made by Australia and New Zealand through legislation, the common law, and conventions and treaties. It is also grounded in a critical review of the law on unilateral withholding and withdrawal as well as the legal context within which this issue sits in Australasia. We argue that the current law is inconsistent with the core values and develop a proposal for a legal response to this issue that more closely aligns with the core values it is supposed to serve.

Integrated reporting and directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure: Law reform options

Integrated reporting () holds significant promise as a new reporting paradigm that is holistic, strategic, responsive, material, and relevant across multiple time frames. However, its uptake in Australia is being hampered by directors’ concerns about personal liability exposure, particularly for forward-looking statements that subsequently prove to be unfounded. This article seeks to illuminate the bases for these liability concerns by outlining the similarities between and the operating and financial review requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and the relevant grounds for liability for misleading and deceptive disclosures, and breach of directors’ duties. In light of this discussion, this article proposes four possible reform options, ranging from minor adaptations to the Framework to far-reaching reforms of the Corporations Act. As assurance is desirable to ensure that reliance can be placed on integrated reports, the development of a legal safe harbour for auditors of forward-looking information is also canvassed.