A developing country's perspective: Reforming insolvency laws to encourage their usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Opportunities in developing countries draw multinational companies, which include but are not limited to low‐cost labour and abundant raw materials. As with any enterprise in any part of the world, there is a risk of business failure when multinational companies operate in developing countries. Consequently, the issue that arises is where insolvency proceedings should commence due to the multinational nature of these organisations. There is no international rule about where insolvency proceedings should open, with this being a matter for each country's laws. As a strategy, multinational companies may bypass developing countries' insolvency systems in favour of other jurisdictions with potentially favourable outcomes. For example, there may be a preference for the members of a multinational group to be handled under insolvency proceedings in one particular country, which may be far from the jurisdiction where the companies operated. This article is centred on why laws in developing countries may not be suitable for multinationals and what can be done to ensure cases do not end up in a court far away, in the United States of America (US) or in the United Kingdom (UK). The aim is to identify ways in which developing countries may reform their laws to encourage their use by multinational companies. The following are the key features to be examined to address the aim of the article: (i) to examine some of the justifications provided by multinational companies as to why developing countries are not suitable forums to commence insolvency proceedings; (ii) to make a general assessment of a selection of developing countries' insolvency laws and institutions; and (iii) to identify what essential values should be incorporated in developing countries' insolvency law reforms for effective insolvency laws.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".