Circular Priorities in Secured Transactions Law
AbstractCircular priority problems are endemic in secured transaction law. A circular priority situation arises when there are three or more parties with competing claims to the same asset and there is no clear ranking of priority among them. There are multiple approaches applied by courts or advanced by commentators to resolve circular priority problems. The different mechanisms used by the courts to resolve a circular priority problem are evaluated using criteria that reflect the general values and goals of commercial law, and the mechanism that best accords with this criteria is identified. Although consensus on the best way of breaking a circularity will reduce litigation costs, it does not provide a complete solution, as it can be undermined by ex post bargaining among creditors. Given this instability, priority rules should be designed so as to limit the occasions when such problems can arise.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.