The concept and scope of inability to pay the debt (Comparative study on American Law, Imamiyya Figh (jurisprudence), and Iran Law)

According to American Law, bankruptcy also known as insolvency is not actualized based on the proviso of debtor employment in the business and Federal Bankruptcy Act (approved in 1898) and its subsequent amendments handle the financial crisis of all of the natural and legal individuals. The legal system of the USA is unitary in the context of bankruptcy. According to the famous opinion of Imamiyya jurists, bankruptcy and insolvency are synonyms. Accordingly, Imamiyya jurisprudence performs unitarily in the management of the inability to pay the debt. However, there is a perspective in Fegh that distinguishes these two concepts robustly. Accordingly, if the assets of the debtor are less than his/her debts but having funds to pay the debts of creditors, the case is bankruptcy. On the other hand, the case will be insolvency if the debtor does not have any property to distribute among creditors. In the legal system of Iran, the financial crisis of natural merchants as well as legal individuals (be a merchant or not), is managed based on the bankruptcy regulations. Nevertheless, the financial crisis of natural non-merchants is handled based on the insolvency system that does not manage the difficulty but just grants respite for payment. The mentioned structure is more close to the jurisprudential rule, which distinguishes insolvency from bankruptcy. This study shows that the abovementioned terms of “bankruptcy” and “bankrupt” used in Articles of Civil Code are not used in similar jurisprudential meanings that require a kind of incapacity or inability for payment and collective settlement of debts. Therefore, the “option of insolvency” mentioned in Article 380 of the Civil Code is not also enforceable.