Public or private gatekeepers in <scp>non‐consensual</scp> debt restructurings in emerging jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In advanced jurisdictions, the choice of a non‐consensual debt restructuring is between a public or a private gatekeeper model where either the court or the licensed insolvency professional respectively approves a restructuring plan that binds dissenting creditors. In the United States, the only gateway is found in Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code 1978, which requires court approval and gives the debtor a significant say in the outcome. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, there exist four gateways, only two of which require court approval (scheme of arrangement and restructuring plan), while the remaining two (administration and company voluntary arrangement) give significant powers to the insolvency practitioner to decide on the outcome. In emerging jurisdictions such as Mainland China and India, due to path dependency and lack of institutional capacity, the court‐supervised model is chosen as the only or primary gateway to legitimise non‐consensual restructurings though the insolvency practitioner has an important statutory role. Using the two jurisdictions as case studies, this article argues that such a choice has several initial benefits but also leads to several problems, including delays in the restructuring, does not necessarily improve substantive outcomes and does not adequately address the shareholder–creditor and creditor–creditor agency costs. This article proposes that for debt restructuring that involves the sale of the business as a going concern, the private gatekeeper should be able to decide on the sale and the distributions following pre‐bankruptcy entitlements. Recourse to the court as a public gatekeeper should only be used for reorganisation proceedings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".