NO.PZ2016031001000138
问题如下：
During bankruptcy proceedings of a firm, the priority of claims was not strictly adhered to. Which of the following is the least likely explanation for this outcome?
选项：
A.Senior creditors compromised.
B.The value of secured assets was less than the amount of the claims.
C.A judge’s order resulted in actual claims not adhering to strict priority of claims.
解释：
B is correct.
Whether or not secured assets are sufficient for the claims against them does not influence priority of claims. Any deficiency between pledged assets and the claims against them becomes senior unsecured debt and still adheres to the guidelines of priority of claims.
考点：priority of claims
解析：当公司破产清算时，按照债券的优先级顺序，债权人依次拿到赔偿。但是，现实中，由于一些原因，不一定会严格按照这个顺序。
主要原因有，公司破产后，会涉及很多相关利益方，谈判赔偿是一个耗时费力的过程；中间会耗费很多钱，例如律所，会计事务所的费用。于是，为了尽快能清算，优先级高的债权人，会“让利”一部分给优先级低的债券人。所以A选项说的就是优先级高的债权人让利一部分，故不选。
除此之外，法院也会根据实际情况，让不同优先级的人拿到一些清偿，这样的裁决也不一定完全是按照绝对的优先级清偿顺序来的。所以C选项也不选。
关于B选项。他说不能严格按照债券优先等级清算的原因是因为抵押资产的变现值小于相对应的债务。这点是错误的，按照严格的优先等级清偿顺序，就算是抵押品变卖值小于secured debt，也要先全部清偿给secured debt的债权人，故当选。
如题 谢谢！
