MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387116868 · doi:10.1002/iir.1506

Guest editorial: <scp>Insolvency‐related</scp> judgments and <scp>war‐related</scp> claims—Recent court practice in Ukraine

2023· editorial· en· W4387116868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olha Stakheyeva‐Bogovyk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsolvencyCitationPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Guest Editorial aims to share some thoughts, potentially triggering further debate, around a topic of recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments, which has been widely discussed recently by the international insolvency community.It is common ground that, while the United States is a welcoming jurisdiction in part for the recognition of foreign insolvency-related judgments as a form of relief under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code, the United Kingdom with its more protective approach and the "rule in Gibbs" generally resists such recognition due to its restrictive interpretation of the scope of "relief" available to the foreign insolvency representative, which could be granted in the United Kingdom in aid of a foreign insolvency proceeding under Schedule 1 of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulation, 2006 ("CBIR"), by limiting it exclusively to procedural relief.No wonder then, that to respond to such legal gaps that have been created by different implementations and applications of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 in various jurisdictions, UNCITRAL has developed and introduced its new Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgements 2019 ("MLIRJ") to further promote the improvement of domestic crossborder insolvency frameworks, so as to enable recognition and enforcement of foreign insolvency-related judgments in the jurisdictions, which currently lack a framework.By contrast, this editorial narrowly focuses on the analysis of some of the provisions of the MLIRJ in the context of recent landmark court practice in insolvency cases in Ukraine, which was triggered by the Russian aggression against Ukraine since February 24, 2022.The initial topic for discussion is, thus, centered around a landmark court decision, which pushed the envelope by giving the green light to consider a debtor's claim for compensation of damages caused by Russia's war/aggression against Ukraine within that debtor's pending insolvency case in Ukraine.This case provides food for thought as to the prospects of qualifying such a court decision as "an insolvency-related judgment" for the purposes of further recognition and enforcement thereof abroad in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0270.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207