The American Bankruptcy Institute's Proposed Chapter 11 Reforms: Some Canadian Thoughts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Bankruptcy Institute (the "ABI") recently undertook an in-depth, three-year study, focusing exclusively on the resolution of financially distressed businesses under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code. This article describes the ABI's process for studying and making recommendations on the reform of Chapter 11 and compares this process with the Canadian approach to law reform in the insolvency context. Next, the article considers a key aspect of the recommendations coming out of the ABI study: s. 363 sales or in Canada, using the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") to liquidate. The article reviews the ABI recommendations concerning the timing of the sale process and a 60-day post-filing minimum moratorium and evaluates both sets of recommendations in the context of the Canadian data. The ABI recommendations relating to the general provisions and approval process for a s. 363 sale are considered and compared to the Canadian CCAA provisions. Finally, the procedural principles suggested to ensure that creditors are afforded the same level of protection in a sale process as in a Chapter 11 plan process are explained and considered in the Canadian context.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| 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".