Bankruptcy remains an important subject especially since the major collapses of several high-profile multinational corporations that were implicated in part due to accounting irregularities concerning intangibles (ASIC, 1998; Lev, 2002; McRobert, 2009). The notable cases of Enron and WorldCom in the United States (US) and One.Tel, HIH in Australia have led to the perception that manipulation of the financial statements is on the rise. Understanding bankruptcy in this context presents an enormous theoretical challenge. Past efforts to provide stakeholders with the most accurate early warning signals of imminent failure have focused on either the development of predictive models using various statistical techniques, selected financial ratios or a combination of both. To date none of these approaches have been able to capture the ever-changing regulatory environment and the subsequent diversity in accounting practices, such as the non-restrictive rules for Intangible Assets in Australia compared with the restrictive rules in the US. It is not difficult to comprehend why researchers were unable to produce that elusive robust bankruptcy prediction model (BPM). A key area for new research is whether the non-restrictive accounting rules under Australian generally accepted accounting principles (AGAAP) or the restricted rules for intangibles under IFRS (much like the non-restrictive rules in the US GAAP prior to 2005) improves the predictive ability of financial ratios with respect to bankruptcy. The approach adopted in the study contrasts from others by adding the firm’s principal activities (using sales from operating activities) as a matching criterion to control for firms intra-industry competitiveness (Sheppard, 1994a, 1994b; Sheppard, 1995).