Parallel Reorganizations under the Recast European Insolvency Regulation – Selected EU Law Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Recast European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) (Regulation 2015/848) repealed the rules in Articles 3(3) and 27 of the original EIR (Regulation 1346/2000) that required that secondary insolvency proceedings take the form of a liquidation (winding‐up). As a result, European debtors may now attempt to resolve their cross‐border insolvencies via parallel reorganization proceedings conducted both in the Member State of the debtor's centre of main interest and in one or more Member States in which the debtor possesses an establishment. This article aims to take account of the principal rules of the Recast EIR which, in addition to the national laws of the Member States involved, will regulate such attempts. Upon the review of these selected rules, the article concludes that, in principle, the Recast EIR provides EU debtors with a feasible cross‐border platform to reorganize in more than one Member State in parallel. However, the article finds that a particular rule central to the system of cross‐border insolvency under the EIR, namely, Article 45, which allows the multiple filing of claims in all proceedings conducted in respect of the debtor, has the potential to frustrate attempts at parallel reorganizations. This is particularly so where the cross‐filing rule combines with Member State law that is rigid as regards plan approval by creditor classes or minimum payouts to certain classes. Copyright © 2018 INSOL International and 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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".