MODEL OF PROCEDURAL COORDINATION IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY (BANKRUPTCY) OF AN ENTERPRISE GROUP
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: there are no rules on the insolvency of erprise groups in Russian bankruptcy law. Traditional and generally accepted is the principle of “one debtor – one procedure”, which corresponds to the principle of isolation and autonomy of each legal entity. This approach does not correspond to the current economic environment, in which there are a large number of interconnected companies that form enterprise groups. This leads to an increasing number of problems in the bankruptcy sector, namely, to an increase in the number of insolvency cases of legal entities with a constant decrease in the percentage of satisfaction of creditors’ claims. In this regard, opinions are expressed about the need to introduce the regime of bankruptcy of enterprise group into Russian legislation. The purpose of this article is to study the enterprise group insolvency model, namely the procedural coordination model. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of procedural coordination and conducts a comparative legal study of those legislations in which this model is already used. The conclusion is made about the expediency of using the procedural coordination model instead of the substantive consolidation model and the need to introduce into the Russian bankruptcy legislation rules that fix the insolvency regime of debtors – members of an enterprise group.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it