Climbing the ladder : a comparative look at creditor ranking in insolvency

Abstract

In an era of unprecedented corporate distress and cross-border financial interdependence, the rules that determine who gets paid first have never been more consequential. This dissertation delivers a systematic comparative study of creditor ranking across Malta, Australia, and Ireland, three jurisdictions whose divergent legal traditions embody contrasting visions of fairness, efficiency, and economic resilience. Employing a dual black-letter and comparative methodology, it unpacks the doctrinal underpinnings of secured, preferential, unsecured, and subordinated claims, revealing how Australia’s unified Personal Property Securities framework and Ireland’s examinership-driven model achieve clarity and stakeholder protection, while Malta’s hybrid system remains dispersed and procedurally opaque. The research further exposes critical vulnerabilities, such as, consumer creditors, small enterprises, and social impact investors routinely fall through the regulatory cracks, highlighting the human and policy cost of an overly formalistic approach. Grounded in these insights, the dissertation advances a bold reform agenda for Malta, including the creation of a consolidated creditor-ranking code, bespoke priority tiers for vulnerable and socially minded creditors, and full alignment with international best practices. These reforms designed not only to bolster legal certainty but to recalibrate the balance between commercial pragmatism and social justice. By reframing creditor ranking as a nexus of law, economics, and public policy, this study offers a blueprint for modern insolvency regimes capable of sustaining both markets and communities.