From subordination to parity: an international comparison of equity securities law claims in insolvency proceedings

Securities law claims in insolvency proceedings raise important questions of allocation of risk and remedies. In the ordinary course of business, equity claims come last in the hierarchy of claims during insolvency. What is less clear is whether this should encompass claims arising from the violation of public statutes designed to protect equity investors. Discerning the optimal allocation of risk is a complex challenge if one is trying to maximize the simultaneous advancement of securities law and insolvency law public policy goals. From a securities law perspective, there must be confidence in meaningful remedies for capital markets violations if investors are to continue to invest. From an insolvency perspective, creditors make their pricing and credit availability choices based on certainty regarding their claims and shifting those priorities may affect the availability of credit. The critical question is the nature of the claim advanced by the securities holder and whether subordination of securities law claims gives rise to inappropriate incentives for corporate officers within the insolvency law regime. A comparative analysis reveals that the U.S. has provided a limited statutory exception to complete subordination through the fair funds provision of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act by allowing SEC claims for penalties and disgorgement to rank equally with unsecured claims even though the funds are distributed to shareholders. The U.K. and Australian schemes permit shareholders to claim directly as unsecured creditors for fraudulent acts and misrepresentation by the issuer. In contrast, Canadian law is underdeveloped in its treatment of such claims. The paper canvasses the policy options available to reconcile securities law and insolvency law claims, including a discussion of the appropriate gatekeeping role for regulatory authorities and the courts, and the need for a framework that offers fair and expeditious resolution of such claims. If the public policy goal of both securities law and insolvency law is to foster efficient and cost‐effective capital markets, it seems that the systems need to be better reconciled than currently. The paper also examines the codified response to the time and resources consumed in various common law tracing claims by customers in a securities firm insolvency. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.