MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1933098475 · doi:10.1002/iir.1209

Reconsidering the Shareholder's Role in Corporate Reorganisations under Insolvency Law

2013· article· en· W1933098475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephan Madaus

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyEquity (law)CreditorShareholderBusinessLaw and economicsBankruptcyEconomicsLawAccountingActuarial scienceCorporate governanceFinancePolitical scienceDebt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A corporate reorganisation under insolvency law is commonly achieved by virtue of a reorganisation plan that provides for the distribution and sacrifice of value among all stakeholders in an insolvent company. Although the creditors' right to vote on such plans and to participate in the wealth distribution according to such plans is universally accepted, the role of old equity in a corporate reorganisation remains a topic that jurisdictions all over the world define very differently. This article first explores possible approaches to shareholders' treatment under insolvency law and supports their inclusion in insolvency proceedings that pursue corporate reorganisations. It then argues that equity interest should not solely be treated according to its economic value and consequently that no absolute priority rule should be applied against them as such treatment would ignore the fundamental difference between liquidation and reorganisation. Finally, it proposes a new cram‐down rule for a class of equity holders. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.022
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207