Representations & Warranties, Fraud, and Risk Shifting: An Analytical Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do violations of contractual representations and warranties (“R&Ws”) merely shift risk by giving rise to contract-breach damages, or can they also give rise to fraud claims? This question is at the heart of numerous lawsuits, including billions of dollars of securitization-related litigation. Many agreements governing the issuance of securities in these transactions limit R&W breach claims to a sole contractual remedy—curing the violation or repurchasing nonconforming loans that caused the violation. Although parties making the R&Ws argue that this sole remedy should adequately shift risk, investor plaintiffs contend that it insufficiently shifts the risk if the violations are extensive. Plaintiffs also argue that extensive R&W violations should constitute fraud, and that in the presence of fraud, their remedies should not be limited. This Article seeks to resolve these issues and provide a more systematic framework for analyzing R&W breaches.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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".