Does being on the board of a bankruptcy-declaring company affect my credit rating?
The answer to your question is governed by the structure of the company and your ownership or lack thereof in the business.  Australian business can be structured the same way U.S. ones are, as a sole proprietorship, partnership, LLC, or company.  If you are only on the board and have no equity, you cannot be affected.  You must have some amount of equity in the business to have any chance of being affected. If the business is a sole proprietorship, then the single individual running the business is personally responsible for all debt and the inability to pay obligations would result in personal bankruptcy which would in all likelihood affect your credit score (it would in the U.S.). If it is a partnership, then anyone holding stock in the company is likewise personally responsible for a portion of the debt, and can be subject to bankruptcy and credit score implications. If the business is structured as a limited liability company or a corporation, a stakeholder's personal finances are separate from the business's and their credit score cannot be affected.
"0% furniture loans can hurt your credit rating. I was told by a bank mortgage officer (sorry I can't cite a document) that credit rating algorithms consider ""consumer"" loans like 0% appliance loans and certain store-specific credit cards as a negative factor, lowering your overall score. The rationalization given was that that taking that type of credit is an indicator that you have zero cash reserves. The actual algorithms are proprietary, so I don't know how you could verify this. If true, it runs counter to the conventional wisdom that getting credit and then paying it off builds your credit score." "Directors can be held responsible for the liabilities of the corporation - see this Wikipedia article - and especially if it was clear that was the reason for the arrangement, you might well find this happening. That said, I know a Canadian who sold his house to a corporation he already owned (he was doing consulting work through it) at the (in his opinion ridiculously high) amount it had been assessed for property tax purposes. The company paid and claimed any and all expenses including paying for the lawn to be mowed and the house to be painted. He lived in it at a reduced rent (this rent was then income to the company) in exchange for looking after it. He was very happy with the arrangement. He was losing the ""no income tax when you sell your primary residence"" benefit we have here, but since he expected to never be able to sell it for more than the amount the company had paid, he wasn't worried. If the company exists for no reason other than to shelter income, hide you from liability, and reduce your taxes, then I would expect it would get you some unwanted attention and possibly some rulings you didn't like. If the company exists for a real purpose, and has income and expenses that outweigh whatever games you're playing with cars and homes, you might be able to achieve this. You need to work out what the benefits (other than ducking liabilities) would be and whether they are worth the hassle." The informational goal about the ratings is an objective opinion about the companies ability to repay the money owed.  Debt rating agencies even provide tables where grades correspond to a range of default probabilities.  The argument I am making is they do not go about their business of giving accurate probabilities of default. You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk. In a nutshell, not really.  That's the risk you take when you co-sign for someone.  The lender only made the loan because of the strength of your brother's credit, not your mother's, so his reputation (in the form of his credit rating) is going to take the hit because of his mother's behaviors. The one thing he can do is this:  The credit bureaus allow you to add a comment or explanation to your credit file which may be helpful, provided potential creditors read it, which is never a guarantee.  It's worth trying though, so suggest to him to look into it. Here's a link for him/you/anyone to look at that can help explain how this works and what effects it can have: Adding a comment to your credit file for negative items I hope this helps. Good luck! "Not entirely. For a creditor to go after the ""parent company"" in one of these cases requires the courts to be willing to ""pierce the corporate veil"" (in legal parlance). Typically this is only done if the parent company set up the wholly-owned-subsidiary in order to perpetrate a fraud. In this case, the subsidiary has a totally legitimate function - to sequester risk.  While you're right that the parent company may have to offer some form of credit guarantees to get the subsidiary to get a loan, often those guarantees still don't create nearly as much exposure for the parent company." "Except the list of exceptions seems to be growing and growing.   You can only go bankrupt once, and certain loans are exempt from bankruptcy anyway.  Want to level the playing field?  Make CEO's responsible too for ""certain debts"" like payroll." "When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: ""Q"" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter ""Q""   is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most   cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan   will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be   worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt   company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of   reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy   proceedings on securities, please read our online publication,   Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer   electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in   a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the   symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and   jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators   halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the   average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out." Disputing the remark seems unlikely to move your score, since it is just that -- a remark.  It's hard to say whether the scoring models can/do read the remarks and incorporate them (somehow) into the scoring metric itself. Disputing the revolving account that should be reported as closed is a different matter.  The question there would be what the status of that account is/was.  In other words, is it showing as an open collection or some other status which would indicate the creditor still has a pending claim?  If so, disputing it might have some effect, although nobody would be able to tell you for certain or even how much your score might be affected. If, as you say, that account should have been part of the bankruptcy package then getting that corrected could be important enough to achieve what you're looking for.  You can try it and see, but even if the effect is minor, you still want your credit report to be a true reflection of the facts. I hope this helps. Good luck! It won't hurt your credit rating. I wouldn't worry about it. The company can certainly pursue debt collections across borders but unless its a massive sum.. they will write it off. Now.. what the right thing to do is to take care of it... 1. for karma's sake and 2. so you don't make a bad name for foreigners. No.  I have several that I haven't used in a year or so (legacy of the time when they gave you money to sign up :-)), and credit rating's something over 800 last I checked. Somewhat.  The balance sheet will include liabilities which as Michael Kjörling points out would tell you the totals for the debt which would often be loans or bonds depending on one's preferred terminology.  However, if the company's loan was shorter than the length of the quarter, then it may not necessarily be reported is something to point out as the data is accurate for a specific point in time only. My suggestion is that if you have a particular company that you want to review that you take a look at the SEC filing in full which would have a better breakdown of everything in terms of assets, liabilities, etc. than the a summary page.  http://investor.apple.com/ would be where you could find a link to the 10-Q that has a better breakdown though it does appear that Apple doesn't have any bonds outstanding.  There are some companies that may have little debt due to being so profitable in their areas of business. Just playing devil's advocate: A falling stock price impairs the firm's ability to raise equity capital efficiently. In these times, additional regulatory capital requirements continue to be levied on the banks, and they are faced with raising capital inefficiently, which may impair their ability to pay their debt, which may lead to a ratings downgrade. Look if BBB was there to provide an honest service only, I would be all for them.  The fact is they provide an honest service, in addition to running a protection racket. If you are listed and you stop paying, your rating will drop.  &gt;**[If I'm paying for a grade, then how's the customer supposed to really trust the Better Business Bureau.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8kfV9kONw)** "I can't think of any conceivable circumstance in which the banker's advice would be true. (edit: Actually, yes I can, but things haven't worked that way since 1899 so his information is a little stale. Credit bureaus got their start by only reporting information about bad debtors.) The bureaus only store on your file what gets reported to them by the institution who extended you the credit. This reporting tends to happen at 30, 60 or 90-day intervals, depending on the contract the bureau has with that institution. All credit accounts are ""real"" from the day you open them. I suspect the banker might be under the misguided impression the account doesn't show up on your report (become ""real"") until you miss a payment, which forces the institution to report it, but this is incorrect-- the institution won't report it until the 30-day mark at the earliest, whether or not you miss a payment or pay it in full. The cynic in me suspects this banker might give customers such advice to sabotage their credit so he can sell them higher-interest loans. UDAAP laws were created for a reason."