This article responds to a recent critique that the securitization of receivables is a legally shaky financial product that survives only because it is too big to fail. This critique argues that securitization's success in avoiding the costs that the Bankruptcy Code imposes on secured credit, including a bankruptcy trustee's ability to use the cash collateral from the receivables, is a type of fraud that hinders or delays the creditors of the originators of receivables. The critique, however, fails. The cases cited for the author's fraud analysis do not support its thesis. Further, the critique fails to demonstrate that securitization's avoidance of the "Bankruptcy Tax" on secured credit harms the creditors of an originator. The critique also does not refute the strong doctrinal foundation of securitization that combines the form and substance of two long recognized legal devices-(1) a true sale of property to a buyer (2) that is a separate legal entity.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 52,768
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
3 ( #1,255,138 of 2,340,352 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #514,582 of 2,340,352 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes