IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ajlecn/v11y2020i2p21n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Relative Payouts to Operational Creditors and Financial Creditors from Bankruptcy Resolution in India

Author

Listed:
  • Prasad Rohit
  • Gupta Gaurav
  • Mathur Yogesh B.

    (Management Development Institute, Economics, Gurgaon, 122001, India)

Abstract

This paper analyses the outcomes of the cases resolved under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India to examine the treatment of admitted claims for the two main classes of creditors i.e. operational and financial creditors. It shows that, at an aggregate level, operational creditors and financial creditors realize an equal percentage of their claims. However, at an individual level, there is wide heterogeneity in the treatment of the two classes of creditors. Three benchmark division rules – Proportional division, Constrained Equal Losses and Constrained Equal Awards, are used to characterize the actual divisions in each case. This analysis allows us to hypothesize that when aggregate claims of operational creditors are tiny, the Constrained Equal Awards (that is extremely generous to small creditors), does well. When aggregate claims of operational creditors are large, the Proportional rule does well. But when the claims of operational creditors fall in an intermediate range, the Constrained Equal Losses rule which is most unfavourable to the operational creditor comes to the fore. Hence, some broad guidelines that can be applied on a case by case basis appear to be desirable.

Suggested Citation

  • Prasad Rohit & Gupta Gaurav & Mathur Yogesh B., 2020. "A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Relative Payouts to Operational Creditors and Financial Creditors from Bankruptcy Resolution in India," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:21:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/ajle-2020-0017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2020-0017
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ajle-2020-0017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rajeswari Sengupta & Anjali Sharma & Susan Thomas, 2016. "Evolution of the insolvency framework for non-financial firms in India," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2016-018, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    2. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    3. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001. "The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
    4. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    5. Safavian, Mehnaz & Sharma, Siddharth, 2007. "When do creditor rights work?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 484-508, September.
    6. Sergei A. Davydenko & Julian R. Franks, 2008. "Do Bankruptcy Codes Matter? A Study of Defaults in France, Germany, and the U.K," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(2), pages 565-608, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emin Karagözoğlu, 2014. "A noncooperative approach to bankruptcy problems with an endogenous estate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 299-318, June.
    2. Juan Moreno-Ternero & Antonio Villar, 2006. "The TAL-Family of Rules for Bankruptcy Problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 231-249, October.
    3. Wulf Gaertner & Richard Bradley & Yongsheng Xu & Lars Schwettmann, 2019. "Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Erik Ansink & Hans-Peter Weikard, 2012. "Sequential sharing rules for river sharing problems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(2), pages 187-210, February.
    5. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    6. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2020. "On the difficulty of budget allocation in claims problems with indivisible items of different prices," ThE Papers 20/09, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    7. Jaume García-Segarra & Miguel Ginés-Vilar, 2023. "Additive adjudication of conflicting claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 93-116, March.
    8. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2021. "On the Difficulty of Budget Allocation in Claims Problems with Indivisible Items and Prices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1133-1159, October.
    9. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Villar, Antonio, 2004. "The Talmud rule and the securement of agents' awards," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 245-257, March.
    10. José Alcalde & María Marco & José Silva, 2008. "The minimal overlap rule revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 109-128, June.
    11. Carmen Herrero & Antonio Villar, 2002. "Sustainability in bankruptcy problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 10(2), pages 261-273, December.
    12. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    13. Chambers, Christopher P. & Thomson, William, 2002. "Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 235-252, December.
    14. Martijn Ketelaars & Peter Borm & Marieke Quant, 2020. "Decentralization and mutual liability rules," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 92(3), pages 577-599, December.
    15. Lorenzo-Freire, S. & Casas-Mendez, B. & Hendrickx, R.L.P., 2005. "The Two-stage Constrained Equal Awards and Losses Rules for Multi-Issue Allocation Situation," Other publications TiSEM a94f2306-7d29-4ad6-8e81-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    17. Moulin, Herve, 2002. "Axiomatic cost and surplus sharing," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 289-357, Elsevier.
    18. Wulf Gaertner & Lars Schwettmann & Yongsheng Xu, 2017. "An Experimental Game of Loss Sharing," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2017-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    19. Ketelaars, Martijn & Borm, Peter, 2021. "On the Unification of Centralized and Decentralized Clearing Mechanisms in Financial Networks," Discussion Paper 2021-015, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Thomson, William, 2008. "The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: A constructive proof," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 59-65, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:21:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.