The Uneasy Case for the Priority of Secured Claims in Bankruptcy: Further Thoughts and a Reply to Critics
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.
|Date of creation:||Mar 1998|
|Publication status:||published as Cornell Law Review Vol. 82, No. 6, pp. 1279-1348 (1997)|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:6472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.