Oversight and Financing of Cross-Border Business Enterprise Group Insolvency Proceedings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION Business insolvency is on the rise, made more complex because of the multinational nature of business structures and the global reach of their economic activities.1 The financial distress of an auto manufacturer in the United States can implicate its subsidiary parts firms in India and Korea, its related supply companies in Canada, its holding company in Germany, its special purpose financing vehicles in the United Kingdom, its debenture holders in Hong Kong, insurers in Bermuda, local sales outlets domestically and abroad, and the employees of all these related businesses. Businesses have frequently integrated their own financing and productive activities within a corporate group or business enterprise group with separate legal entities in each domestic jurisdiction and highly integrated capital and governance structures. When a business slides into financial distress, the very structure of these multinational business enterprise groups poses significant challenges for how to address the insolvency. The business is global, but the laws addressing insolvency are local.2 The ability of that business to restructure to become viable again or to liquidate to satisfy creditors' claims is highly dependent on the ease with which the insolvency law regimes of multiple jurisdictions can facilitate a fair and timely resolution to the business' financial distress. A number of international initiatives have facilitated cross-border recognition of insolvency proceedings. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, for example, is aimed at facilitating recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, while still allowing domestic courts to retain considerable jurisdiction over domestic proceedings.3 Courts apply the principles of comity and cooperation in order to conduct an orderly resolution of the firm's financial distress, whether that resolution entails liquidation, reorganization, or some combination of the two strategies.4 Currently, fifteen countries have adopted the Model Law, including the United States in its adoption of Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.5 These initiatives have increased the facility with which business insolvency is addressed in an increasingly globalized world. However, to date, the Model Law does not address corporate or enterprise groups.6 UNCITRAL has been deliberating for two years on how to recognize and address enterprise group insolvency.7 An important aspect of cross-border cooperation is the court's recognition and oversight of proceedings, including approval of interim financing for the insolvent business group during the period that it is seeking the protection of courtadministered proceedings to address the insolvency. Many multinational business enterprises, while comprised of multiple separate legal entities, are often governed centrally with their finances highly interwoven.8 On insolvency, creditors seek to realize their claims from the specific entity with which they have contracted. However, a myriad of problems arise in making those claims, for instance: assets against which creditors may have claims shifting to other entities within the business group, problems of jurisdiction for making and realizing claims, different priorities of claims in different jurisdictions, and challenges for continued operation of the business where there is a possibility for a viable workout. This article discusses recent developments in cross-border enterprise group insolvencies, including access to proceedings, the role of court oversight, and the availability of financing of the business during the period that it is trying to resolve its financial distress. Cross-border cooperation is a critically important aspect of international insolvency law, and there are mechanisms that can facilitate that cooperation. Equally, however, there are risks to creditors, particularly smaller stakeholders- such as trade suppliers, employees, and contingent claimants-who may be prejudiced by the recognition of a consolidated insolvency proceeding in a jurisdiction remote from their own. …
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".