Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract UNCITRAL is striving to determine the law applicable to cross‐border insolvency avoidances. In principle, this should be the lex fori concursus. However, both Regulation (EU) 2015/848 and the laws of some European countries adopt a combination of lex fori concursus and lex causae called the ‘veto solution’. As a result, the insolvency practitioner applies the lex fori concursus, but the opponent may successfully object to the practitioner that the lex causae does not consider that act as challengeable. This article will maintain four theses. Firstly, when provisions of domestic insolvency avoidance law require proof, concerning the beneficiaries' mental state, this prerequisite concurs with the other prerequisites in detecting the debtor's fraudulent behaviour. This holds true also whenever statutes require that, at the time of the transaction, the beneficiaries should not be aware of the debtors' distress. In fact, in these cases the protection for the beneficiaries' good faith is only an unintended consequence of presumptions that aim at facilitating insolvency practitioners by shifting the burden of proof—this reverse burden transforms ‘bad faith’ proofs into ‘good faith’ proofs. Secondly, this statement covers also the many forms of actio pauliana that exist across Europe. Thirdly, Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 is unlawful since it is non‐compliant with Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on which Regulation 2015/848 is based. Fourthly, a lawmaker who intends to determine the law applicable to cross‐border insolvency avoidances ought to opt, both at the EU level and at the non‐EU level, for the lex fori concursus only.
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 | 0.034 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".