The duties of a receiver/manager in Nigeria and Ghana
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper critically examines the duties of receiver/managers in Nigeria and Ghana with a view to determining their adequacy or otherwise. The paper distinguishes between a receiver/manager appointed pursuant to ownership or management dispute and a receiver/manager appointed pursuant to the realization of security. With respect to the former the paper concludes that the persons appointed thereby are better described as managers and suggests a more detailed elaboration of their duties. To determine the duties of receiver/managers appointed to realize security the paper examines the meaning of the receiver/managers; the capacity to be appointed to that office and the duties of a receiver/manager appointed by the court as well as those appointed out of court by the security holders. The paper also considers the consequences of a breach of duty and concludes that the law on receivership is largely the same in Nigeria and Ghana even though there is more litigation in Nigeria. Furthermore the paper suggests the importance of appointing professionals as receiver/managers; the need for the clarity of rules to enable the receiver/managers effectively discharge their duties to enable an assessment of the adequacy of the duties. In this regard the paper recommends a comprehensive reform of insolvency law in Nigeria and Ghana. Copyright © 2005 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it