{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018867924528301886, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0071877807726864335, 'mean_word_length': 5.751515151515152, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Long-tail liability law reform.

There is a need for the law to evolve so that corporations are obliged to make proper provision for liabilities to unascertained future creditors. However, implementation of long-tail liabilities is far from straightforward and has many repercussions for both corporations and personal injury law. In October 2005 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer requested the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee to consider a "referred proposal" designed to achieve comprehensive and principled law reform. Analysis of the referred proposal reveals many shortcomings, a number of which have been addressed by the Committee in its June 2007 Discussion Paper, Long-Tail Liabilities: The Treatment of Unascertained Future Personal Injury Claims. This editorial urges further and reflective analysis of the referred proposal and of the Committee's tentative suggestions in order to achieve a balance among the entitlements of unascertained future creditors, other known creditors, shareholders, corporations' financial viability, and the conceptual integrity of corporations law.