MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200009289 · doi:10.1002/iir.1444

A major step in developing Mainland China's cross‐border insolvency law

2021· article· en· W4200009289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meng Seng Wee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Insolvency and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainland ChinaInsolvencyLawBankruptcyReciprocity (cultural anthropology)TreatyJurisdictionPolitical scienceChinaMainlandBusinessLaw and economicsSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Section 5 of Mainland China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law provides that, in the absence of treaties, Chinese courts may recognise foreign insolvency proceedings based on reciprocity. The meaning of reciprocity is very uncertain, and no rules have been laid down on how recognition or assistance may be given to foreign insolvency proceedings. The Mainland has not entered into any treaty or arrangement on the matter with another jurisdiction. On 14 May 2021, the Mainland signed an agreement with Hong Kong, under which the Mainland issued an Opinion on the rules for the recognition of and assistance to Hong Kong insolvency proceedings. This article argues that this is a momentous development for both the Mainland and Hong Kong. It explains how the Opinion adapted provisions and ideas from the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency with modifications to suit the Mainland's needs and the objectives it wanted to achieve; in particular, the Mainland's concern with mitigating the risks arising from the Opinion's implementation. At the same time, however, cases decided after the coming into force of the arrangement revealed the hurdles posed by the corporate structure that Chinese groups in Hong Kong adopted to the utility of the arrangement, foreshadowing dynamic developments in practice and debate in the doctrinal and theoretical spheres.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207