iNO – CPE with a relish of Schadenfreude

If you’re a member of a professional association – ARITA, CAANZ, AIIP or TMA Australia – you need to accumulate Continuing Professional Education (CPE) or Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits to achieve your triennial total. What better way than with a subscription to iNO where the exercise is augmented by the joy of Schadenfreude on almost every page?

Why reading iNO satisfies non-verifiable CPE
iNO comfortably fits within the non-verifiable category of CPE credit accumulation, and arguably supersedes much of what practitioners typically log. The test isn’t tone. It’s relevance not irreverence, and the type of activity type (reading, watching, listening).

Case law updates. iNO regularly digests judgments affecting voidable transaction recoveries, insolvent trading, DOCAs, remuneration approval, examinations, and trust assets. A liquidator who reads a piece on the latest Federal Court decision on unfair preferences or s 588FGA indemnity claims is doing exactly the kind of currency reading the regulations contemplate. ASIC’s INFO 258 specifically identifies keeping pace with law reform as an expectation, and judicial development of insolvency principles is the practical edge of that obligation.

Cautionary tales and conduct stories. iNO’s “what not to do” coverage (CALDB and Disciplinary Committee decisions, court criticisms, independence failings, DIRRI deficiencies, unauthorised transactions, defective reports to creditors,) relates directly to the ARITA Code of Professional Practice and the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS). Reading about a peer’s misstep, and understanding why the court or the regulator arrived at a particular decision develops professional judgement in a way pure black-letter study often does not.

Industry and regulator news. iNO’s coverage of ASIC and AFSA priorities, ATO behaviour, ARITA, TMA, CAANZ and AIIP submissions, and Treasury reform consultations all goes to staying current in the practising environment.

On “irreverence”
Neither the ARITA Regulations nor ASIC INFO 258 impose a tone test on non-verifiable CPE. The four-part test for verifiable CPE doesn’t apply, and the non-verifiable definition turns on whether the material is relevant to your career, not whether it is presented with gravitas. A wry headline doesn’t strip a piece of its substantive content on, for example, a Full Court ruling or a Supreme Court costs decision against a practitioner. If anything, an engaging house style increases the likelihood the practitioner actually reads, retains, and applies it, which is the underlying point of CPE in the first place.

And Remember – Practical record-keeping: save your Priority subscription invoice, log the date, the article or edition, the topic, and a one-line note on what you took from it. ASIC requires CPE records be produced on request, and that level of detail satisfies the obligation for non-verifiable activity.