|
||||
|
||||
The Uneasy Case for the Priority of Secured Claims in Bankruptcy: Further Thoughts and a Reply to CriticsLucian A. BebchukHarvard Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) Jesse M. FriedHarvard Law School 1997 Cornell Law Review, Vol. 82, pp.1279-1348, 1997 Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 224 Abstract: In an earlier article, "The Uneasy Case for the Priority of Secured Claims in Bankruptcy" 105 Yale Law Journal 857 (1996), we suggested that the case for a full priority of secured claims in bankruptcy is an uneasy one. In this paper, we address various reactions and objections to our analysis that have been offered by subsequent work. We also further develop some of the main elements of the analysis in our earlier article with respect to both our analysis of the comparative merits of full and partial priority and our analysis of how a partial priority regime could be implemented. The analysis confirms our earlier conclusion that the case for a full priority of secured claims in bankruptcy is an uneasy one.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 79 Keywords: Secured debt, bankruptcy, reorganization, chapter 11, priority, creditors, debtors, security interests, collateral, unsecured debt, lenders, borrowers JEL Classification: G33, K22 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: January 27, 1998 ; Last revised: May 5, 2009Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.562 seconds