MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588582245

Corporate Groups and Crossborder Insolvencies: A Canada-United States Perspective

2001· article· en· W1588582245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob Zeigel

Bibliographic record

VenueFordham journal of corporate & financial law · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationInsolvencyCreditorBusinessHarmonizationSubsidiaryCorporate groupBankruptcyInternational tradeParent companyAccountingFinanceDebtCorporate governance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CORPORATE GROUPS AND CROSSBORDER INSOLVENCIES: A CANADA - UNITED STATES PERSPECTIVE* I. INTRODUCTION World trade and international investments have expanded rapidly over the past twenty-five years.1 Not surprisingly, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of crossborder insolvencies involving multinational enterprises, large and small,2 which has fueled the drive for greater harmonization among the many different national rules governing the treatment of crossborder insolvencies. Canada and the United States are very active participants on both sides of this phenomenon. The two countries are each other's largest trading partners, with over eighty percent of Canada's external trade being with the United States.3 Similarly, there has been a steady increase in the number of crossborder insolvencies that have come before the courts of both countries in which Canadian and U.S. bankruptcy4 judges have been called upon to recognize each other's proceedings and to cooperate closely with a view to maximizing returns for creditors in the liquidation of assets or to help bring about the reorganization of an ailing enterprises.5 The literature describing these developments, both North American and overseas, is very substantial, but there is one aspect that does not appear to have received the attention it deserves.6 These are the problems particular to the reorganization or liquidation of insolvent corporate groups. Large corporations are typically organized in groups.7 The group may have a few affiliates or a thousand or more.8 Given the close business bonds between Canada and the U.S., it is highly predictable that a U.S-centered group will have affiliates in Canada, and vice versa. For a variety of reasons, the failure of a major member of a group will often jeopardize the financial survival of the whole group. Consequently, it is very common in Canada and the U.S. for a corporate group to make a joint insolvency filing encompassing all or most of the members of the group, with a view to reorganizing the affairs of the whole enterprise or to bring about a going concern sale if that course of action should be decided upon.9 The consolidation may be procedural (procedural consolidation) or, much less frequently, substantive in character (substantive consolidations). The evidence indicates that seventy per cent or more of major corporate restructurings in Canada and the U.S. are in some form of consolidated basis.10 This then raises the question, in the case of crossborder insolvencies, of how well the Canadian and U.S. bankruptcy rules and principles dovetail with one another to bring about successful joint proceedings in both countries. There is another side to the coin. The insolvency proceedings may be limited to one member of the group. Nevertheless, creditors of the insolvent company may argue that the parent company was so deeply implicated in the affairs of the failing affiliate that it should be held jointly responsible for the liabilities of the affiliate. Yet again, even if there is no attempt to hold the parent company directly liable, the trustee may argue that a claim the parent company may have against the affiliate should be subordinated to the claims of other creditors because the parent company abused its dominant position. These are familiar issues in domestic insolvency law.11 The question for consideration is how well they play out in a crossborder context where the parent company is U.S. based and the subsidiary is located in Canada, and vice versa with respect to a Canadian parent company and a U.S. based subsidiary. Having said this, I must also add quickly that most of the Canada-U.S. crossborder cases I am familiar with have involved problems of the first type, those arising from consolidated filings, and not from attempts to hold a parent company liable for the activities of its affiliates.12 II. Two PRELIMINARY POINTS A. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFordham journal of corporate & financial lawSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207