The Australian corporate rescue regime: bold experiment or sensible policy?
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 takes its title from a paper given by the Honourable Justice Robert Austin, of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, to a conference on Key developments in Corporate Law and Equity in March 2001. In that speech he described Australia's corporate rescue regime as a “bold experiment”. This paper suggests that this is not a justified description and further that it is unlikely to end in the foreseeable future. The paper consists of a broad outline of how the system operates in Australia. It provides some commentary on the more significant features of the operation of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Law and considers suggestions that have been made in respect of reform of the legislation. The paper goes on to consider how the regime has been used since its introduction showing it is now the most widely used form of insolvency administration. The paper then examines briefly some of the attempts at evaluation of the regime. It concludes by suggesting that at this stage there is inadequate information to be conclusive as to the procedure's success or otherwise in fulfilling its aims of providing better returns to creditors. It is argued first, that the wide use of the procedure suggests that it is unlikely to be fundamentally altered in the near future. A further conclusion is that there is some soundness in the approach that the legislation takes in having less court control and a greater role played by the insolvency practitioner.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it