Twilight in the Zone of Insolvency: Fiduciary Duty and Creditors of Troubled Companies - Comparative & International Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our panel will talk about comparative and international perspectives.I am going to start with a brief introduction, then I am going to call on Andreas Engert to give an explanation of some key conceptual points that are important to understanding the problem we are dealing with in the European context.Hanno Merkt is then going to give us a very rapid geographical tour of how these problems are dealt with in several jurisdictions.I am then going to ask Donna McKenzie-Skene to talk about a very interesting exercise that people in the United Kingdom have gone through considering exactly what treatment should be given to fiduciary duty-the duty of directors to people other than the shareholders-and whether that problem should be left simply to the jurisprudence or treated by stating standards in a statute.Finally, I am going to ask Pamela Huff to give an assessment of this problem from Canada, a jurisdiction that shares traits with those of us in Europe and, of course, the U.S., which we have been hearing about all day.My introduction is set out in a slide presentation entitled "Twilight in the Zone of Insolvency-View from the EU," and consists of a whirlwind tour of some key points.The first concerns the EU legal context.On the screen is a map of the European Union.It shows that we started off with six countries in 1957, which seems like a long time ago.Several other countries joined, as shown on the screen.We now have twenty-five countries in the EU.' Keep in mind that along with the EU there is a separate institution called the European Economic Area, or "EEA," to which the EU member states and three other jurisdictions belong.In those three countries, by virtue of EEA membership, many of the rules that are applicable in the EU also apply.In fact, the EEA countries are part of the free-trade zone with the EU.So there are at least twenty-five 1.At the time of the conference, there were twenty-five member states in the EU, but, as of January 21, 2007, there were twenty-seven member states.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".