Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Selected Works

Banking and Finance

Selected Works

PDF

Bankruptcy Law

Publication Year
Publication

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Liquidity, Systemic Risk, And The Bankruptcy Treatment Of Financial Contracts, Riz Mokal Dec 2014

Liquidity, Systemic Risk, And The Bankruptcy Treatment Of Financial Contracts, Riz Mokal

Riz Mokal

Parties to repos, and to swaps and other derivatives are accorded privileged treatment under the bankruptcy laws of several dozen countries. Several key international “best practice” standards urge legislators in other jurisdictions to provide likewise. The beneficiaries of these privileges are solvent counterparties enabled, unimpeded by bankruptcy moratoria, to implement close-out netting arrangements and to dispose of collateral. The purported rationale is mitigation of systemic risk.
Taking a broad international perspective, this Article explores the “domino” contagion view of distress that motivates the privileges. This view derives from the outdated “microprudential” understanding of systemic risk, and is theoretically flawed and …

Go to article

Righting Others' Wrongs: A Critical Analysis Of Clawback Suits In The Wake Of Madoff-Type Ponzi Schemes And Other Financial Frauds, Amy Sepinwall Dec 2011

Righting Others' Wrongs: A Critical Analysis Of Clawback Suits In The Wake Of Madoff-Type Ponzi Schemes And Other Financial Frauds, Amy Sepinwall

Amy J. Sepinwall

In a typical Ponzi scheme, early investors earn “profits” not through any legitimate investment activity on the part of the Ponzi scheme operator; instead the operator simply transfers money that later investors deposit to the earlier investors who seek redemptions. As such, when the scheme goes bust, as it must, the Ponzi scheme operator will not have enough money to cover all of the investors’ deposits, let alone the earnings on those deposits that the investors thought they were owed. Should the scheme’s winners – i.e., those who withdrew more money than they deposited – be compelled to return their …

Go to article