Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although subordination agreements are widely used, they are less comprehensively understood. In order to devise a workable framework for analyzing the legal issues associated with them, a fundamental distinction must be drawn between debt subordination and security interest subordination. In order to resolve questions concerning the characterization of subordination as security interests, the effect of bankruptcy of the junior or subordinating creditor, and the effect of assignments or consecutive subordinations, it is necessary to determine if the agreement creates a real right or a personal right. A promise not to assert a claim or a promise to pay a creditor an equivalent amount to that received creates only a personal right. This will not give the recipient a proprietary right that can be asserted against the junior or subordinating creditor’s trustee in bankruptcy or against a subsequent assignee. But if the subordination agreement transfers the junior or subordinating creditor’s claim to the recipient, it creates a proprietary right and must be perfected under the PPSA in order to be effective against the junior or subordinating creditor’s trustee in bankruptcy or a subsequent assignee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".