| dc.contributor.author | Muoki, Sharon Ndunge | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-21T23:46:12Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-12-21T23:46:12Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021-01 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11071/12476 | |
| dc.description | A new dawn was heralded by the Companies Act 20151 which introduced several changes such as the allocation of takeovers and mergers to another act as opposed to the Capital Markets Act, the introduction of comprehensive financial reporting requirements in line with International Accounting best practice, among others have been relatively progressive. However, the most relevant to this paper is the introduction of administration, liquidation and moratorium which are governed majorly by the Insolvency Act of 2015. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The potential collapse of Spire Bank in Kenya gives rise to questions of bank insolvency and the potential of reviving failed banks. Over the years research has shown that several banks in Kenya have failed due to various reasons such as mismanagement and excessive insider lending. However, despite analysing the reason why banks failed, most research failed to consider the question for bank insolvency and its efficiency to revive failed banks. The current insolvency regime for banks seems to lead to the complete collapse of banks rather than revival, begging the question on whether current bank insolvency law is effective. Furthermore, in the process of winding up a failed bank, insolvency law tends to favour creditor protection over depositon protection. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Strathmore University | en_US |
| dc.title | Protecting the depositors: a case for a sui generis bank insolvency regime | en_US |
| dc.type | Learning Object | en_US |
