Southward Bound: Preliminary Evidence on Experience with Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the impact of adoption of provisions of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on cross-border insolvency. This paper offers an analysis of the U.S. jurisprudence in regard to Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code which has been in effect for five years. Similar provisions on cross-border insolvency exist in the Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The paper examines case law under Chapter 15 to discern whether or not its adoption has created greater certainty, predictability and ease for Canadian insolvency representatives seeking recognition and relief in the United States. Of the more than 380 Chapter 15 proceedings examined, over half originated in Canada, but the majority of these were uncontested. Where issues were litigated in Chapter 15 proceedings – e.g. location of foreign main proceedings and scope of available relief – they tend to be hotly contested, with a number of appellate judgments. Overall, the author discerned a relatively high degree of comity and cooperation, with the U.S. courts expressing a willingness in a number of cases to defer to foreign law and foreign main proceedings where the matters advance the objectives of Chapter 15.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".