The Evolution of U.S. Insolvency Law for Financial Market Contracts

Michael H. Krimminger
{"title":"The Evolution of U.S. Insolvency Law for Financial Market Contracts","authors":"Michael H. Krimminger","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.916345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was the most significant change to the United States' insolvency laws for the financial markets in more than fifteen years. Unlike all prior laws defining how financial market contracts would be treated in bankruptcy or a bank insolvency, the new comprehensively updated and harmonized all of the principal laws that could come into play in insolvencies of market participants, including banks, thrifts, credit unions, broker-dealers, investment banks, and other companies. The 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act, however, was not a new direction in American law. The special protections provided to termination and close-out netting for capital markets contracts in the new amendments simply continued an evolutionary process in American insolvency law that started with the enactment of the new Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Once the foundation for protection of the liquidity of financial market contracts had been established by 1991, American law provided the basis for effective risk management by market participants. The task of the past fifteen years has been to secure those benefits, clarify the interrelationships between different insolvency laws, and define the scope of flexibility to accommodate market developments. It must be recognized, however, that these protections are a departure from the pari pasu principle inherent in equitable insolvency laws. Nonetheless, this principle has never meant that all creditors should receive the same proportional share. Insolvency law has always recognized that creditors should be able to benefit from some characteristics of the bargain they made with the debtor before its failure. As illustrated in the article, the fundamental goal of those special protections is the prevention of the risks to the stability of the financial system that could result from a cascade of interrelated defaults if normal insolvency processes prevented termination and settlement of pending trades. As a result, there are limits to the further expansion of those protections if they are to remain consistent with the underlying public policy that supports them. This article examines the evolution of the special protections for financial market contracts under U.S. insolvency law (including the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act's protection for \"qualified financial contracts\") and the public policy goals underlying those protections, looks at the continuing course of that evolution in the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and provides an overview of what this evolution means for bank and non-bank insolvencies of financial market participants.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.916345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was the most significant change to the United States' insolvency laws for the financial markets in more than fifteen years. Unlike all prior laws defining how financial market contracts would be treated in bankruptcy or a bank insolvency, the new comprehensively updated and harmonized all of the principal laws that could come into play in insolvencies of market participants, including banks, thrifts, credit unions, broker-dealers, investment banks, and other companies. The 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act, however, was not a new direction in American law. The special protections provided to termination and close-out netting for capital markets contracts in the new amendments simply continued an evolutionary process in American insolvency law that started with the enactment of the new Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Once the foundation for protection of the liquidity of financial market contracts had been established by 1991, American law provided the basis for effective risk management by market participants. The task of the past fifteen years has been to secure those benefits, clarify the interrelationships between different insolvency laws, and define the scope of flexibility to accommodate market developments. It must be recognized, however, that these protections are a departure from the pari pasu principle inherent in equitable insolvency laws. Nonetheless, this principle has never meant that all creditors should receive the same proportional share. Insolvency law has always recognized that creditors should be able to benefit from some characteristics of the bargain they made with the debtor before its failure. As illustrated in the article, the fundamental goal of those special protections is the prevention of the risks to the stability of the financial system that could result from a cascade of interrelated defaults if normal insolvency processes prevented termination and settlement of pending trades. As a result, there are limits to the further expansion of those protections if they are to remain consistent with the underlying public policy that supports them. This article examines the evolution of the special protections for financial market contracts under U.S. insolvency law (including the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act's protection for "qualified financial contracts") and the public policy goals underlying those protections, looks at the continuing course of that evolution in the Bankruptcy Reform Act, and provides an overview of what this evolution means for bank and non-bank insolvencies of financial market participants.
美国破产法在金融市场契约中的演变
2005年《破产滥用预防和消费者保护法》的颁布是15年来美国破产法对金融市场最重大的变化。与以往所有规定金融市场合同在破产或银行资不抵债时如何处理的法律不同,新的法律全面更新和协调了所有可能在市场参与者(包括银行、储蓄机构、信用合作社、经纪交易商、投资银行和其他公司)破产中发挥作用的主要法律。然而,2005年的破产改革法案并不是美国法律的新方向。新修正案中对资本市场合同的终止和终止净收入提供的特殊保护只是延续了美国破产法的演变过程,该过程始于1978年颁布的新《破产法》。1991年,保护金融市场合约流动性的基础确立后,美国法律为市场参与者进行有效的风险管理提供了基础。过去15年的任务是确保这些利益,澄清不同破产法之间的相互关系,并确定灵活性的范围,以适应市场发展。但是,必须认识到,这些保护背离了衡平法中固有的同等权益原则。尽管如此,这一原则从未意味着所有债权人都应获得相同比例的份额。破产法一直承认,债权人应当能够从其在破产前与债务人达成的交易的某些特征中获益。如文中所述,这些特别保护的根本目标是防止金融体系稳定的风险,如果正常的破产程序阻止了未完成交易的终止和结算,那么一系列相互关联的违约可能会导致风险。因此,如果要使这些保护与支持它们的基本公共政策保持一致,那么进一步扩大这些保护就会受到限制。本文考察了美国破产法(包括《破产法》和《联邦存款保险法》对“合格金融合同”的保护)下对金融市场合同的特殊保护的演变,以及这些保护背后的公共政策目标,考察了《破产改革法》中这一演变的持续过程,并概述了这一演变对金融市场参与者的银行和非银行破产意味着什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信