MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995623670 · doi:10.1002/iir.109

Voidable preference reform: a New Zealand perspective on shifting standards and goalposts

2003· article· en· W1995623670 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Thomas G. W. Telfer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreditorBankruptcyInsolvencyContext (archaeology)Database transactionParliamentGovernment (linguistics)PreferenceDebtorPower (physics)Law and economicsEconomicsLawReceivershipBusinessPolitical scienceDebtFinanceComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While there is consensus that some form of avoiding power is required in the context of a bankruptcy or company liquidation, there is little agreement on the means to implement a voidable preference regime. The New Zealand experience of the past eight years illustrates the inherent difficulties in designing a workable voidable preference regime. The New Zealand Companies Act 1993 replaced the debtor's intention with a test premised on the overall effect of the transaction with an exception for transactions in the ordinary course of business. The ordinary course of business exception became the most litigated and controversial aspect of the 1993 reforms and recently the government has announced its intention to abandon the ordinary course safe harbour in the pending round of insolvency reform. The paper examines the origins of the 1993 reforms and offers an explanation for the failure of the effects based regime. The New Zealand regime placed too much power in the hands of the liquidator with the result that creditors bore the cost and burden of justifying why the transaction should be saved. Although Parliament enacted the effects based regime with a view to promoting better equality of treatment amongst creditors the regime failed because it achieved too much equality. Copyright © 2003 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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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