Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada and the United States corporate rescue looks different today than it did when it was first conceived. The timing and specific circumstances surrounding the governing legislation’s enactment were different in Canada than they were in the US, but the underlying concepts and goals within the broader context of bankruptcy legislation were the same: both countries foresaw a proceeding that would rehabilitate and restructure corporations in financial distress, allowing them to re-emerge as fully functioning financial entities. Saving companies would avoid the profound effects of business failure on directly impacted stakeholders, as well as the wider-reaching effects on the surrounding communities; it would protect investments, preserve jobs, maintain the supplier and customer base, and prevent the wider impact of business failure on society. This paper explores the evolution of corporate rescue in Canada and the US. Initially, there was much support for traditional restructuring, but the tide eventually turned against it for being slow, expensive and cumbersome. At the same time, globalization and changes in technology, firm assets, the economy and financial instruments, were modifying the ways companies operated and did business with each other and with the community. The combination of these factors led to the emergence of a different process, one that liquidated debtor companies or merged them with other companies, instead of rescuing them through traditional restructuring proceedings. This paper considers the emergence of liquidation proceedings, which did not occur under bankruptcy or receivership regimes, but under the statutes that governed traditional restructurings. It examines the factors that led to this process, and its impact on the public interest goals of the legislation. Finally, it contemplates the way forward for each country, whether that involves abandoning the bankruptcy forum in favour of non-bankruptcy legislation and private contracts, or reconceptualizing the goals to align with current practices.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".