王冠偏好的回归:来自印度和英国的视角

IF 0.3 3区 社会学 Q4 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Nemika Jha, Meghmala Mukherjee, Parth Maniktala
{"title":"王冠偏好的回归:来自印度和英国的视角","authors":"Nemika Jha,&nbsp;Meghmala Mukherjee,&nbsp;Parth Maniktala","doi":"10.1002/iir.70002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the past few decades, there has been some formal convergence regarding the treatment of crown debts, with several jurisdictions limiting the preference given to crown debts in their insolvency legislations. However, two jurisdictions have notably diverged from this general trend: the United Kingdom and India. In the United Kingdom, the initial legislative priority accorded to crown debts was removed in the early 21st century, only to be brought back by the Parliament in 2020. Conversely, in India, while the legislature has consistently relegated crown debts to a lower position in the liquidation waterfall, a 2022 Supreme Court decision has resulted in crown debts occupying a higher priority. This Article traces the chequered history of crown preference across both jurisdictions. In doing so, this Article argues that while the two jurisdictions have arrived at a similar end result of according priority to crown debts, they have traversed vastly different paths in reaching the said outcome. Further, the Article reconsiders the policy considerations in favour of crown preference and argues that such policy considerations may not fully justify the reintroduction of crown preference.</p>","PeriodicalId":53971,"journal":{"name":"International Insolvency Review","volume":"34 2","pages":"390-405"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The return of crown preference: Perspectives from India and the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"Nemika Jha,&nbsp;Meghmala Mukherjee,&nbsp;Parth Maniktala\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/iir.70002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Over the past few decades, there has been some formal convergence regarding the treatment of crown debts, with several jurisdictions limiting the preference given to crown debts in their insolvency legislations. However, two jurisdictions have notably diverged from this general trend: the United Kingdom and India. In the United Kingdom, the initial legislative priority accorded to crown debts was removed in the early 21st century, only to be brought back by the Parliament in 2020. Conversely, in India, while the legislature has consistently relegated crown debts to a lower position in the liquidation waterfall, a 2022 Supreme Court decision has resulted in crown debts occupying a higher priority. This Article traces the chequered history of crown preference across both jurisdictions. In doing so, this Article argues that while the two jurisdictions have arrived at a similar end result of according priority to crown debts, they have traversed vastly different paths in reaching the said outcome. Further, the Article reconsiders the policy considerations in favour of crown preference and argues that such policy considerations may not fully justify the reintroduction of crown preference.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Insolvency Review\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"390-405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Insolvency Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iir.70002\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Insolvency Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iir.70002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的几十年里,在处理王室债务方面已经有了一些正式的趋同,一些司法管辖区在其破产立法中限制了对王室债务的优先考虑。然而,有两个司法管辖区明显偏离了这一总体趋势:联合王国和印度。在英国,最初给予王室债务的立法优先权在21世纪初被取消,直到2020年才被议会恢复。相反,在印度,虽然立法机构一直将王室债务置于清算瀑布的较低位置,但2022年最高法院的一项裁决导致王室债务占据了更高的优先地位。本文追溯了这两个司法管辖区皇冠偏好的曲折历史。在这样做的过程中,本文认为,虽然两个司法管辖区已经达到了根据王室债务优先的类似最终结果,但它们在达到上述结果时走过了截然不同的道路。此外,本文重新考虑了有利于皇冠优惠的政策考虑,并认为这种政策考虑可能不能完全证明重新引入皇冠优惠是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The return of crown preference: Perspectives from India and the United Kingdom

Over the past few decades, there has been some formal convergence regarding the treatment of crown debts, with several jurisdictions limiting the preference given to crown debts in their insolvency legislations. However, two jurisdictions have notably diverged from this general trend: the United Kingdom and India. In the United Kingdom, the initial legislative priority accorded to crown debts was removed in the early 21st century, only to be brought back by the Parliament in 2020. Conversely, in India, while the legislature has consistently relegated crown debts to a lower position in the liquidation waterfall, a 2022 Supreme Court decision has resulted in crown debts occupying a higher priority. This Article traces the chequered history of crown preference across both jurisdictions. In doing so, this Article argues that while the two jurisdictions have arrived at a similar end result of according priority to crown debts, they have traversed vastly different paths in reaching the said outcome. Further, the Article reconsiders the policy considerations in favour of crown preference and argues that such policy considerations may not fully justify the reintroduction of crown preference.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
33.30%
发文量
36
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信