Source: SECP consultation on insolvency professionals — 2 October 2026 · Research date: 11 October 2026. Analysis is general information and should be read with the full instrument and subsequent amendments.
SECP has opened consultation on professional accreditation for official liquidators, provisional managers and insolvency experts. The central question is how competence and independence should be assured without unnecessarily limiting access to experienced practitioners.
The policy proposal
On 2 October 2026, SECP announced that it had sought public comments on a proposed accreditation framework for official liquidators, provisional managers and insolvency experts. These professional functions are central to the conduct of insolvency and corporate restructuring processes, in which the responsible practitioner may deal with distressed businesses, creditor claims, asset preservation and statutory reporting.
The proposal is at consultation stage. It must not be described as a current requirement that all practitioners hold an accreditation of a particular kind. Eligibility, transitional arrangements and professional standards will turn on the final instrument, if issued.
Why accreditation matters
Insolvency appointments demand a combination of legal authority, financial competence, commercial judgment and independence. A transparent accreditation regime could help courts, creditors and regulators evaluate the credentials of persons proposed for appointment and maintain confidence in how assets are managed.
Equally, the detail matters. Restrictions that are disproportionate, insufficiently transitional or indifferent to relevant practical experience may reduce the available pool of qualified professionals. The consultation offers stakeholders an opportunity to address both quality of supervision and access to expertise.
Chambers assessment
Three legal questions should frame consideration of the proposed system: who is eligible to seek accreditation, what institutional body is competent to determine and supervise status, and how proposed standards interact with existing statutory appointment powers and professional duties.
A further issue is independence. Eligibility by qualification alone does not resolve conflicts of interest arising from relationships with a company, its creditors, shareholders or advisers. Any eventual framework should be examined alongside the court’s or competent authority’s control over appointments and the applicable fiduciary duties.
Implications for restructurings and creditor processes
Companies approaching insolvency or rehabilitation should continue assessing prospective practitioners on proven competence and independence under the existing law. Creditors and boards contemplating a restructuring should track the consultation because later accreditation requirements could affect appointment planning, transaction costs and the range of available advisers.
The correct response at present is informed participation in the consultation and monitoring of the final scheme, not alteration of live appointment procedures solely on the announcement of a proposal.
What should affected organisations do?
The proposal is material to insolvency practice and distressed-company governance, but is not yet an operative professional licensing requirement.
Recommended action checklist
- Obtain the SECP consultation paper and identify the specific eligibility and accreditation provisions.
- Review possible effects on lawyers, accountants, restructuring advisers and practitioners.
- Consider comments on training, independence, transitional treatment and oversight.
- Track eventual notification rather than treating consultation language as binding law.
Timing and legal status
Consultation paper published 1 October 2026; no commencement date established.
This is a consultation alert, not a statement that the proposals are binding.
SECP — press release, 2 October 2026