MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403072262 · doi:10.1002/iir.1548

Creditors' treatment under the new <scp>Italian</scp> “<scp>Concordato Preventivo</scp>” and directive (<scp>EU</scp>) 2019/1023: A comparison with chapter 11

2024· article· en· W4403072262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Federico Pappalettera

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Insolvency Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectiveCreditorBusinessComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article compares the treatment of creditors in Italy under the “new” judicial composition with creditors (CWC) (“concordato preventivo”) procedure (as recently amended by the new Italian Business Crisis and Insolvency Code of 2022) with Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code, focusing on two main issues. The first issue analyses the impact of the Directive (EU) 2019/1023, which aims to remove barriers to fundamental freedoms and promote market efficiency by introducing, among others, preventive restructuring frameworks (PRFs). The Directive's guidelines on the treatment of creditors, including the requirement to allocate restructuring proceeds on the basis of the “relative priority rule (RPR)”, are examined. The second issue discusses Italy's new Business Crisis and Insolvency Code of 2022, which introduces several innovations to judicial CWC proceedings. These include facilitations for CWC on a going concern basis, a mandatory division of creditors into classes, a new voting and cramdown system, and significant changes to the distribution of restructuring proceeds, also to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1023.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Insolvency ReviewSame topicCorporate Governance and LawFrench-language works237,207