The future of harmonisation of directors' duties in the European Union: The Preventive Restructuring Directive and group insolvencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The European Union (EU) Preventive Restructuring Directive seeks to harmonise directors' duties with the goals of promoting early responses to financial distress and rescuing viable enterprises. However, due to the persistent differences in substantive laws and traditions of EU Member States – most notably concerning the recognition of group interest in company and insolvency law, general and imprecise wording of the Preventive Restructuring Directive and its insufficient attention to group insolvency, additional steps need to be taken to achieve these important goals. (i) This article maps the European debate on group interest, observes its emergence in bank resolution and points out the divergent approaches to its acceptance at the national level. (ii) It examines the recent work and recommendations of UNCITRAL on directors' obligations in the period approaching insolvency in enterprise groups, and (iii) critically analyses the approach of the Preventive Restructuring Directive. (iv) Finally, it discusses the alternative normative framework for further harmonisation of insolvency‐related directors' duties in the EU. It suggests that instead of focusing on the interests of all stakeholders, it is far better to encourage reasonable steps to preserve and maximise the value of the debtor company. This could include consideration of the wider group environment and group interest, which should not make debtor's creditors worse off (group‐mindful “no worse off” standard). It also endorses the adoption of guidelines and tools supporting the decision‐making process in a crisis situation, creating ex‐ante certainty and discouraging opportunistic behaviour.
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 | 0.066 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| 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".