A theory of relativity in restructuring developed with the Coase Theorem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article addresses a key topic in restructuring law, namely the alternative legislative rules for setting priorities for payments and rights among stakeholders in a statutory restructuring programme. The EU Member States have now implemented the Restructuring Directive (2019/1023), which gives two options for the priority rules and the outcomes of the new laws seem to vary significantly. As this legislation is important also for the efficiency of the capital markets, it is good to investigate the potential impacts the new legislative structures may bring for the process. In the article the author argues, by using the Coase Theorem, a leading theory in law and economics, that wider powers for a court to consider the interests of all parties in restructuring could be a preferable legislative solution to restructuring law. It would protect generally the creation of a restructuring surplus, as an individual class would be unable to use its rights as a tool for gaining further benefits. Relativity would stimulate the bargaining of property rights in the process and would follow the Coase Theorem, according to which bargaining between individuals or groups related to property rights will lead to an optimal and efficient outcome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".