Regulating against corporate phoenix activity

This paper considers the adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks to deal with corporate phoenix activity. Phoenix activity, which is often triggered by a solvency crisis, is estimated to cost the Australian economy up to $3 billion each year. Despite the raft of piecemeal Australian legislation directed at this activity, phoenix activity does not appear to be abating. This paper considers regulatory approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law. This study reveals and explores a perception that the law is deficient, and the tension that exists between the adequacy of the law and the regulatory approach.

Phoenix activity: Regulatory challenges and the law

Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity. Phoenix activity pushes tolerance of entrepreneurial activity to its absolute limits. The wisest approach would be to front end the reforms so as to alleviate the considerable detection and enforcement burden upon regulatory bodies. There is little doubt that breach of the existing law is difficult and expensive to detect; and this is a significant burden when regulators have shrinking budgets and are rapidly losing feet on the ground. This front end approach may need to include restrictions on access to limited liability. The more limited liability is misused, the stronger the argument to limit access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

The conundrum of phoenix activity in Australia: Is further reform necessary?

Corporate phoenixing activity is estimated to cost the Australian economy $1-3 billion dollars annually. Significant questions arise as to whether existing legal frameworks are adequate to deal with phoenix activity, and whether further reform is necessary. Bills proposing reform appear to be languishing amid doubts as to their potential effectiveness. This paper will examine the conundrum presented by phoenix activity, the importance of further reform and the impact of the lack of a statutory definition of ‘phoenix activity’ on a regulatory environment that not only uses the term, but punishes offenders accused of it.

The conundrum of phoenix activity: Is further reform necessary?

Phoenix activity presents a conundrum for the law and its regulators. While there is economic cost associated with all phoenix activity, the underlying behaviour is not always illegal. A transaction with indicators of phoenix activity may be an entirely innocent and well-intentioned display of entrepreneurial spirit, albeit one that has ended in failure. Restructuring post business failure is not illegal per se. Recent reforms targeting phoenix activity fail to grapple with the vast range of behaviour that can be described as phoenix activity since they do not differentiate between legal and illegal activity. This article explores the importance of the distinction between legal and illegal phoenix activity, the extent to which the existing law captures a range of behaviour that can be described as illegal phoenix activity and the response of key regulators and governmental bodies to the absence of single law that attempts to define illegal phoenix activity.

Economic theory informing approaches to phoenix activity in small business: A neo-Schumpeterian analysis

The adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks dealing with corporate phoenix activity have been repeatedly called into question over the past two decades through various reviews, inquiries, targeted regulatory operations and the implementation of piecemeal legislative reform. Despite these efforts, phoenix activity does not appear to have abated. While there is no law in Australia that declares ‘phoenix activity’ to be illegal, the behaviour that tends to manifest in phoenix activity can be capable of transgressing a vast array of law, including for example, corporate law, tax law, and employment law. This paper explores the notion that the persistence of phoenix activity despite the sheer extent of this law suggests that the law is not acting as powerfully as it might as a deterrent. Economic theories of entrepreneurship and innovation can to some extent explain why this is the case and also offer a sound basis for the evaluation and reconsideration of the existing law. The challenges facing key regulators are significant. Phoenix activity is not limited to particular corporate demographic: it occurs in SMEs, large companies and in corporate groups. The range of behaviour that can amount to phoenix activity is so broad, that not all phoenix activity is illegal. This paper will consider regulatory approaches to these challenges via analysis of approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law capturing illegal phoenix activity. Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity, at least to some extent. Even then, phoenix activity pushes tolerance of repeated entrepreneurial failure to its absolute limit. The more limited liability is misused and abused, the stronger the argument to place some restrictions on access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

Can an Ecdysiast Fag speak the voice of transgender? Phoenix (un)rising and the assumptions in Re Kevin revisited

"Each night the men look so surprised I change my sex before their eyes Tell me if you can What makes a man a man" - Charles Aznavour, ‘What makes a man a man (Comme ils disent)’. In (the few) Western jurisdictions in which marriage remains a forensic artefact constructed on the basis of a man|woman binary, the anatomical and heteronormative assumptions which underlie the construction of marriage remain as artificial constructs which do not map well (if indeed at all) to current social, or even medical, approaches to gender. In Re Kevin (Validity of Marriage of Transsexual) [2001] FamCA 1074, Justice Chisolm sought to recast the forensic ascription of sex against a broader set of criteria, expanding the range of sexually dimorphic anatomy used to determine sex for the purposes of marriage in Australia and incorporating observations of psycho-social gender-differentiation as factors relevant to the ultimate question for the Court — ‘What makes a man a man?’ Yet neither expansion is unproblematic. This article explores this fundamental forensic question against the background of Aznavour’s ‘Comme ils dissent’, in which the persona of un(e) stripteaseuse travesti struggles to answer precisely the same question. It concludes that Re Kevin might offer no more sophisticated an analysis of the lived reality of trans than Aznavour’s ecdysiast fag — not trans, but un travesti: "I shop and cook and sew a bit Though mum does too, I must admit I do it better."

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Affects Environmental: presented at American Society of Civil Engineers National Water Resources Engineering Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, 14 January 1971

The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal is a man-made waterway connecting the upper Chesapeake Bay with the Delaware Bay. It started in 1829 as a private barge canal with locks, two at the Delaware end, and one at the Chesapeake end. For the most part, natural tidal and non-tidal waterways were connected by short dredged sections to form the original canal. In 1927, the C and D Canal was converted to a sea-level canal, with a controlling depth of 14 feet, and a width of 150 feet. In 1938 the canal was deepened to 27 feet, with a channel width of 250 feet. Channel side slopes were dredged at 2.5:1, thus making the total width of the waterway at least 385 feet in those segments representing new cuts or having shore spoil area dykes rising above sea level. In 1954 Congress authorized a further enlargement of the Canal to a depth of 35 feet and a channel width of 450 feet. (pdf contains 27 pages)

Description of a "Phoenix" phenomenon in the growth of Campylobacter jejuni at temperatures close to the minimum for growth

When Campylobacter jejuni cultures that had been grown in broth at 39degreesC were subcultured into fresh medium at 30degreesC, there was a transient period of growth followed by a decline in viable-cell numbers before growth resumed once more. We propose that this complex behavior is the net effect of the growth of inoculum cells followed by a loss of viability due to oxidative stress and the subsequent emergence of a spontaneously arising mutant population that takes over the culture.