Security Interest - Rationale

Rationale

A secured creditor takes a security interest to enforce its rights against collateral in case the debtor defaults on the obligation. If the debtor goes bankrupt, a secured creditor takes precedence over unsecured creditor in the distribution.

There are other reasons that people sometimes take security over assets. In shareholders' agreements involving two parties (such as a joint venture), sometimes the shareholders will each charge their shares in favor of the other as security for the performance of their obligations under the agreement to prevent the other shareholder selling their shares to a third party. It is sometimes suggested that banks may take floating charges over companies by way of security - not so much for the security for payment of their own debts, but because this ensures that no other bank will, ordinarily, lend to the company; thereby almost granting a monopoly in favour of the bank holding the floating charge on lending to the company.

Some economists question the utility of security interests and secured lending generally. Proponents argue that secured interests lower the risk for the lender, and in turn allows the lender to charge lower interest; thereby lower the cost of capital for the borrower. Compare, for example, interest rates for a mortgage loan and for a credit card debt.

Detractors argue that creditors with security interests can destroy companies that are in financial difficulty, but which might still recover and be profitable. The secured lenders might get nervous and enforce the security early, repossessing key assets and forcing the company into bankruptcy. Further, the general principle of most insolvency regimes is that creditors should be treated equally (or pari passu), and allowing secured creditors a preference to certain assets upsets the conceptual basis of an insolvency.

More sophisticated criticisms of security point out that although unsecured creditors will receive less on insolvency, they should be able to compensate by charging a higher interest rate. However, since many unsecured creditors are unable to adjust their "interest rates" upwards (tort claimants, employees), the company benefits from a cheaper rate of credit, to the detriment of these non-adjusting creditors. There is thus a transfer of value from these parties to secured borrowers.

Most insolvency law allows mutual debts to be set-off, allowing certain creditors (those who also owe money to the insolvent debtor) a pre-preferential position. In some countries, "involuntary" creditors (such as tort victims) also have preferential status, and in others environmental claims have special preferred rights for cleanup costs.

The most frequently used criticism of secured lending is that, if secured creditors are allowed to seize and sell key assets, a liquidator or bankruptcy trustee loses the ability to sell off the business as a going concern, and may be forced to sell the business on a break-up basis. This may mean realising a much smaller return for the unsecured creditors, and will invariably mean that all the employees will be made redundant.

For this reason, many jurisdictions restrict the ability of secured creditors to enforce their rights in a bankruptcy. In the U.S., the Chapter 11 creditor protection, which completely prevents enforcement of security interests, aims at keeping enterprises running at the expense of creditors' rights, and is often heavily criticised for that reason. In the United Kingdom, an administration order has a similar effect, but are less expansive in scope and restriction in terms of creditors rights. European systems are often touted as being pro-creditor, but many European jurisdictions also impose restrictions upon time limits that must be observed before secured creditors can enforce their rights. The most draconian jurisdictions in favour of creditor's rights tend to be in offshore financial centres, who hope that, by having a legal system heavily biased towards secured creditors, they will encourage banks to lend at cheaper rates to offshore structures, and thus in turn encourage business to use them to obtain cheaper funds.