Recognition of UK Insolvency Proceedings Post‐Brexit: The Impact of a ‘No Deal’ Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the impact of a ‘no deal’ or ‘hard’ Brexit on the recognition of insolvency proceedings commenced in the UK by the remaining Member States of the European Union (EU) post‐Brexit. The paper considers the framework currently implemented by the Recast European Insolvency Regulation and the possible approaches when it will cease to apply to proceedings commenced post‐Brexit. The paper identifies that there will be no overarching framework in the event that ‘no deal’ is reached between the UK and the EU for post‐Brexit arrangements, resulting in reliance on individual Member States' domestic laws to determine recognition of insolvency proceedings commenced in the UK. The paper sets out the contrasting approaches of five of the UK's key trading partners in the EU: France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain. The paper concludes that UK insolvency proceedings will not be recognised in a consistent manner in these Member States, which will be detrimental to stakeholders in, and ultimately the economies of, the UK and these Member States. In doing so, the paper underlines the importance of an agreement being reached between the UK and the EU on the recognition of cross‐border insolvency proceedings for the benefit of all parties. Copyright © 2018 The Authors International Insolvency Review published by 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".