MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168368126 · doi:10.1002/iir.125

Making company directors liable: a comparative analysis of wrongful trading in the United Kingdom and insolvent trading in Australia

2005· article· en· W2168368126 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew Keay, Michael J. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyAccountingBusinessLawLegislatureCompanies ActDebtBankruptcyStrengths and weaknessesCorporate lawLaw and economicsEconomicsFinancePolitical scienceCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The separate legal entity doctrine in corporate law means that directors are not generally liable for their company's liabilities. However, there have been actions taken by governments and courts to make directors liable in certain cases. This article examines and compares legislative provisions in the United Kingdom and Australia to make directors liable for the debts of their companies. These provisions, namely section 214 of the UK's Insolvency Act 1986 (wrongful trading) and section 588G of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (insolvent trading), had the same starting point, but now differ substantially, even though, arguably, they retain very similar objectives. The article investigates: the reasons for these differences; the criteria on which each of the provisions focus; and the ramifications for the different approaches. It also endeavours to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the respective approaches adopted in each country. 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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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