Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper attempts to shed some light on the issue referred to by the term ‘group threat’. The factual appearance of corporate groups will be emphasized, as well as the question of what particular dangers arise from groups of legal entities. It will be argued that the source of group threats lies in the supremacy of group interest over the interests of affiliates, particularly in groups acting as a single unit. However, while efficiency gains inherent in group structures have attracted considerable attention in the debate about the insolvencies of corporate groups, the aspect of how the restriction of group threats can be reconciled with these efficiency‐preservation concepts has been neglected. This appears of some concern given the fact that group threats and group synergy effects are part of the same coin. Both sides of the Janus‐head ought to be considered in insolvency concepts and an attempt will be made to put the specific aspect of group threats into the wider context of group insolvencies. Existing approaches will be introduced, summarized and categorized, with a particular view taken of their common characteristics. It is argued that most insolvency concepts suffer from the same fundamental deficiencies: the focus on the structure of groups, which makes the very nature of integrated companies difficult to grasp. Consequently, this calls into question the application of these concepts and leads, furthermore, to significant collateral damage in the shape of principles central to company law. Resulting from these shortcomings and from the insight that the supremacy of the group interest constitutes the fundamental source of group characteristics, this paper suggests as an alternative that the focus be placed on wrongful conduct, the argument being that it is not the static structure, but the way the group is directed and ruled, which constitutes the decisive criterion for insolvency concepts. The understanding of group threats is therefore the key to a satisfactory approach to group specific challenges in insolvency. Copyright © 2009 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".