The Challenge of Wealth
By Dr. Meir Tamari
RESPONSA- RE'EH; Week of 17th-22, Menachem Av, 5763
From a purely economic view bankruptcy is nothing more than the market's
mechanism for correcting errors in investment or in management. It should
be remembered that the market is a profit and loss system, so that
bankruptcy is part of the loss aspect. However, there are also social and
moral effects that must still be addressed. There is the question of the
morality of the debtors not meeting their obligations to their creditors.
The bankrupt party may be impoverished if they meet these obligations and
somebody has to be responsible for their welfare and that of any employees
From a halakhic point of view it should be born in mind that, the
repayment of debts is a mitzvah (Ketubot, 86a), so there is a moral and
religious obligation involved. Furthermore, all the codes make it quite
clear that the creditor has the full right to reclaim his debts, although
we would like him to waive those rights as an act of charity. The
creditor's rights to full repayment exist irrespective of whether the
debtor is poor and the creditor is rich. If necessary, the courts are
obliged to seek out and sell the debtor's assets and leave him with,
"clothing for a year, food for 30 days, a mattress to sleep on and a
covering, all suitable to his social standard [The Chatam Sofer interprets
this as being the standard of his peers, and his tallit and tephillin" (
Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat, section 97, subsection 23). The same
source shows that there is no justification for leaving him with luxuries
such as fancy clothing or jewelry; even his wife's or his children. This is
contrary to the practice in the modern world, where it is common practice
for the bankrupt debtor to continue living well at the creditors expense.
So that actually, there is no place for bankruptcy and evading the
repayment of financial debts. The only argument that makes bankruptcy
permissible is that since it is the law of the land and all the parties to
a transaction know this, therefore they agreed to this possibility.
While all this is true of personal bankruptcy, it may well be that it does
not apply to the corporation in view of the limited liability nature which
is recognized halakhically, so that it is clear that the creditor may not
claim the personal assets of the shareholders.
There is, however, a responsum of the London Bet Din on June 20th1991 that
make it clear that any fraud on the part of the directors or shareholders
invalidates the limited liability nature of the corporation.
"The plaintiffs were engaged by the defendant's corporation, Alef ltd. to
provide accounting services, which they did. Invoices for these services
were presented, but to date no payment was received. The defendant acquired
another corporation, Bet Gimel. On October 19990, Aleph Lt., transferred
all its assets to Bet Gimmel before entering voluntary liquidation on the
27th February 1991. Now the plaintiffs claim payment for their services and
the defendant, while admitting liability, argues that Aleph has no assets
and he is not personally liable for its debts."
The Bet Din Rules that:
"Where goods or services were provided to a limited liability corporation
in consequence of which a liability has arisen, and the corporation has
been subsequently liquidated, there is no recourse in Jewish law to the
directors or to the shareholders. This, however, only applies where there
has been no action designated to denude the liquidated corporation of its
assets, prior to liquidation. If such were made, then the person taking
such action would be personally liable for the liquidated corporation's debts.
Having been satisfied that that defendant had indeed acted thus the Bet Din
rules that he is personally liable for the monies owed. We do not uphold
his contention that the fees charged were excessive, since no evidence has
been adduced that this is so".
It may be argued that not all bankruptcy is fraudulent and therefore the
shareholders have protection of the limited liability nature of the
corporation. However, all corporate research has shown that corporate
bankruptcy can be foretold, except those caused by fire, war or natural
forces, on the basis of the financial reports of the corporation alone,
some five years before it happens. The directors would therefore have known
many years before pleading bankruptcy so that any funds borrowed without
disclosing this information would be fraudulent, and therefore would bring
into question the defense given by the limited liability clause to the
shareholders personal assets.
It has been pointed out to me, that the creditors are supposed to ascertain
the creditworthiness of their corporate debtors and to monitor them;
failure to do so should free the debtor from personal liability. That may
be the case when professional lenders are concerned, since these have the
tools to make assessments and to monitor them. However, where is the
justification for applying this argument to suppliers, employees and small
creditors? Above all, there is the moral and religious dimension of
applying the Jewish values even where the strict letter of the law
recognizes the legality of dina de malkhuta dina.
Copyright © 2002 by Rabbi Meir Tamari and Project Genesis, Inc.
Dr. Tamari is a renowned economist, Jewish scholar, and founder of the Center For Business Ethics (www.besr.org) in Jerusalem.