The relation between duration of insolvency proceedings and their efficiency (with a particular emphasis on Polish experiences)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The following article addresses the issue of the duration of insolvency proceedings (both winding‐up and reorganization) and its influence on the efficiency of the proceedings. The previous opinion presented in the literature, according to which shorter and cheaper insolvency proceedings contribute to establishing enterprises, has been recently reflected in a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks. It expressly states that the excessive length of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures is an important factor triggering low recovery rates and deterring investors from doing business in jurisdictions where procedures risk taking too long and being too costly. It was also pointed out that reducing the length of restructuring procedures would result in higher recovery rates for creditors as the passing of time would normally only result in a further loss of value for the enterprise. Moreover, to promote efficiency and reduce delays and costs, the EU Directive recommends introducing flexible preventive restructuring frameworks. The research carried out within the ACURIA project, particularly interviews, allows us to answer the question about possible discrepancies between the law on the books and the law in action with respect to provisions on duration of the proceedings. Based mainly on the case study and the interviews with practitioners, this article shows that, despite a relatively modern framework, the length of the proceedings may not be satisfactory and ‐ in the case of Poland–is due to non‐legal factors and “law in action,” which are both basic barriers to the implementation of the time limits for proceedings introduced by the legislator. The study confirms that the thesis that the statement about the need to reduce the excessive length of insolvency procedures in many of the EU Member States resulting in legal uncertainty for creditors and investors and low recovery rates is true. It will also be demonstrated, however, that the duration of the proceedings is only one of the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the proceedings, along with the costs and recovery rate. It has been pointed out in the interviews that, in practice, there are proceedings in which, due to the deliberate extension of proceedings, all creditors ultimately have been fully satisfied.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".