A comparative study on the compensation of bankruptcy trustees in insolvent estates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A well‐functioning bankruptcy system is essential for economic stability, ensuring the efficient resolution of bankruptcies and the fair distribution of remaining assets. However, many jurisdictions face the issue of “empty,” “assetless,” or “insolvent” estates, where the assets of bankrupt entities are insufficient to cover the costs of the bankruptcy proceeding, particularly the compensation of bankruptcy trustees. This issue has been considered an obstacle in the Dutch legal practice by bankruptcy trustees, judges, and other lawyers for many years, and recently also by Dutch policymakers, but its actual size and approach for possible solutions have received little attention in scholarship. To this end, we conducted a comprehensive study of various aspects of the issue. Part of this study concerned the review of a number of foreign legal systems to learn from best practices abroad. This explorative part of our study provides a comparative analysis of 18 jurisdictions outside the Netherlands on how different countries address the challenge of compensating bankruptcy trustees in cases where estates lack sufficient funds. The goal of this part of our research was to look for the legal framework in those jurisdictions with the aim to provide an overview of existing funding strategies abroad. These strategies include public funding mechanisms, where the state covers trustee compensation in cases of insufficient assets, and advance payments by applicants to cover (initial) costs. Additionally, some systems rely on mechanisms like minimum guaranteed fees, insurance schemes, or funding from specialized bankruptcy funds. This part of the study concludes by offering an overview of the variety of bankruptcy trustee compensation in insolvent estates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".