The role of stakeholders on rejection of bankruptcy applications in the case of “poverty” of the estate: A Polish case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this article is to supplement the Law and Economics area of science with regard to the scope of the ex ante effectiveness of bankruptcy law using the example of Poland. Bankruptcy law is effective in the ex ante stage when it eliminates from the market insolvent entrepreneurs who cannot even afford to cover the costs of bankruptcy proceedings. In these cases, the bankruptcy court should dismiss the petition for bankruptcy because of “poverty” of the insolvent estate. As a result, the insolvent debtor should be liquidated and deleted from the register of companies. This paper investigates entities whose bankruptcy petition has been rejected due to “poverty” of the insolvent estate. The study shows that, after the filing has been dismissed, the majority of these entities are not liquidated. To determine who is responsible for this state of affairs, the article identifies the stakeholders at the time that applications are filed for bankruptcy proceedings and also after the bankruptcy petition has been rejected. The article highlights stakeholders' diverging interests, strengths, and weaknesses to assess their potential impact on bankruptcy procedures that should be dismissed due to “poverty” of the insolvent estate.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".