Bankruptcy protection duration and outcome of Canadian public firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the determinants of bankruptcy protection duration of Canadian public firms, and also investigate the duration for various bankruptcy outcomes including the liquidation and re-emergence of bankrupt firms. Design/methodology/approach This study uses data on all Canadian public firms that applied for bankruptcy protection over the period 1992–2014. The authors mainly apply duration and survival analyses to draw the main conclusions. Findings The authors find that larger and older firms with more complicated structures and issues to settle tend to remain under protection from creditors longer, and also ascertain that the fate of relatively successful companies is determined faster. Moreover, the authors report that it takes less time to achieve a final solution for firms under bankruptcy protection when interest rates are increasing and the term spread is high. Finally, firms that file for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) spend longer restructuring than firms that file under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Research limitations/implications The paper investigates only publicly listed firms. The data on private firms that are required to conduct the research are not available. Practical implications Various stakeholders including regulators can predict the bankruptcy protection period using the paper’s findings. Depending on the desired outcomes (reduce uncertainly, safeguard jobs or protect creditors’ rights), specific rules can be followed. Originality/value To the authors; knowledge, this is the first paper that investigates the Canadian bankruptcy protection duration. It uses the unique Canadian framework to infer the determinants of bankruptcy protection duration and bankrupt firms’ outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".