In re Lehman Brothers International (Europe): Positivism or the Rigour of Pedantry?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the decisions of the Companies Court and Court of Appeal in the case of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration). It shows how the judges' undue focus on the literal meaning of the language used in Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 had unfortunate consequences on the process of restructuring the company and contradicted the intention of the legislature. It therefore proposes that it may sometimes be important to revert to the erstwhile golden rule whereby judges may depart from the ‘plain meaning’ of the words used in a statute to avoid an absurd or unfair result. This may have prevented the judges from observing that a scheme under Part 26 can vary or extinguish a creditor's rights qua creditor, but cannot vary or extinguish property rights; although debt is a form of property. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".