I've successfully submitted a letter to the AFR.

Background:
An article in the Australian Financial Review (April 28, front page) talked about ASIC's insolvency commissioner, Michael Dwyer, flagging some degree of leniency towards small/medium business who are found to have traded while insolvent. The article addressed several other issues surrounding external administration.

There was a letter from Andrew Heard (a partner in an (accounting?) firm) on April 29, mainly concentrating on the high cost of external administration.

The letter, as printed:

Creditors want fairer insolvency process

As a vocal creditor of a high profile company collapse in 2002, I read with interest your "ASIC Leniency for business failure" (April 28). However, I feel, from a creditor's viewpoint, that some issues have been missed.

The main problems with the current insolvency law, for creditors, is its sheer complexity, and that a deed of company arrangement is wide open to abuse. The perceived (and sometimes actual) lack of independence of administrators is also a serious problem.

Most crediors have never dealt with a formal insolvency before, in sharp contrast to administrators who deal with insolvency law every day. Because creditors are unfamiliar with their rights, and the sheer expense of obtaining professional advice, it is far too easy for administrators to pull the wool over their eyes, usually to benefit the insolvent company's directors.

One way to address concerns of independence is for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to operate a random or round-robin allocation of administrators and other insolvency practitioners to insolvency cases: the directors (or major creditor) say when (and what), but ASIC decides impartially (*1*) who.

We also need far better education, aimed at smaller creditors, about their rights, and the process of administration (or receivership, etc) and more prescriptive requirements on deeds of company arrangements, to lessen opportunities for abuse and reduce complexity.

ASIC insolvency commissioner Michael Dwyer is clearly smart - his observation of the destruction of company value upon entering external administration (also alluded to in Andrew Heard's letter, April 29) is absolutely spot-on. I think that if he can also (*2*) make the process fairer, the proposed changes would vastly improve results for creditors and insolvent companies alike.

Nick Bishop, Vermont South Vic.

Apart from the minor edits ...
(*1*) two words swapped: "impartially decides"
(*2*) shortened from: "I think that if he can also use the opportunity to make the process fairer for creditors, the proposed ..."
I still think "impartially decides" is correct grammar - it's an adverb-verb combination.

Conclusion:
I'm quite happy that my letter got in, more or less unmolested. I presume ASIC keeps an eye on these things, so hopefully I've vocalised at least some of the issues that creditors grapple with, and hopefully it won't be thrown in the "mindless/pointless complaints category".