对正式诉讼和庭外重组的评估:对奥地利转型专业人士的调查结果。

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Stefan Mayr, Christine Duller, Matthias Baschinger
{"title":"对正式诉讼和庭外重组的评估:对奥地利转型专业人士的调查结果。","authors":"Stefan Mayr,&nbsp;Christine Duller,&nbsp;Matthias Baschinger","doi":"10.1007/s10657-023-09771-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation in a creditor-friendly bankruptcy system such as that of Austria. From a neoinstitutional perspective, we present different forms of bankruptcy law and the specifics of reorganisation in Austria. Next, we show several distinctive criteria and influencing factors for formal reorganisation and workouts. We group these factors into constitutions and institutional settings, process and handling, and implementation of the reorganisation. Using a sample of 411 survey responses from turnaround professionals, our empirical study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation. We apply a multivariate approach comprising two-sided paired samples Wilcoxon tests to assess the derived hypotheses and a hierarchical cluster analysis. Our results indicate significant differences in the valuation of the two forms: the turnaround professionals rate public perception much higher for out-of-court reorganisation, whereas legal certainty is rated significantly better for formal proceedings. Regarding process and handling, transparency and the handling of blocking positions are arguments for formal reorganisation, whereas flexibility is valuated better for workouts. In terms of implementation, respondents see advantages for out-of-court reorganisation, as it facilitates the implementation of both financial and operational measures. Taxation, the handling of blocking positions, and the improvement of public perception were identified as key development aspects for the legal framework conditions of the various reorganisation forms.</p>","PeriodicalId":51664,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Law and Economics","volume":" ","pages":"1-43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264218/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of formal proceedings and out-of-court reorganisation: results from a survey among turnaround professionals in Austria.\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Mayr,&nbsp;Christine Duller,&nbsp;Matthias Baschinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10657-023-09771-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation in a creditor-friendly bankruptcy system such as that of Austria. From a neoinstitutional perspective, we present different forms of bankruptcy law and the specifics of reorganisation in Austria. Next, we show several distinctive criteria and influencing factors for formal reorganisation and workouts. We group these factors into constitutions and institutional settings, process and handling, and implementation of the reorganisation. Using a sample of 411 survey responses from turnaround professionals, our empirical study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation. We apply a multivariate approach comprising two-sided paired samples Wilcoxon tests to assess the derived hypotheses and a hierarchical cluster analysis. Our results indicate significant differences in the valuation of the two forms: the turnaround professionals rate public perception much higher for out-of-court reorganisation, whereas legal certainty is rated significantly better for formal proceedings. Regarding process and handling, transparency and the handling of blocking positions are arguments for formal reorganisation, whereas flexibility is valuated better for workouts. In terms of implementation, respondents see advantages for out-of-court reorganisation, as it facilitates the implementation of both financial and operational measures. Taxation, the handling of blocking positions, and the improvement of public perception were identified as key development aspects for the legal framework conditions of the various reorganisation forms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Law and Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264218/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Law and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-023-09771-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-023-09771-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究分析了奥地利等债权人友好型破产制度中特定形式重组的决策标准。从新制度的角度来看,我们介绍了奥地利不同形式的破产法和重组的具体情况。接下来,我们展示了正式重组和锻炼的几个不同标准和影响因素。我们将这些因素分为宪法和机构设置、重组的过程和处理以及实施。我们的实证研究使用411份来自转型专业人士的调查回复样本,分析了特定形式重组的决策标准。我们应用了一种包括双侧配对样本的多变量方法——Wilcoxon检验来评估衍生的假设和层次聚类分析。我们的研究结果表明,这两种形式的估值存在显著差异:转型专业人士对庭外重组的公众认知评分要高得多,而对正式诉讼的法律确定性评分要高得多。关于流程和处理,透明度和阻挡位置的处理是正式重组的论据,而灵活性在训练中被评估得更好。在实施方面,受访者认为庭外重组有利于财务和运营措施的实施。税务、处理阻塞性职位和改善公众认知被确定为各种重组形式的法律框架条件的关键发展方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessment of formal proceedings and out-of-court reorganisation: results from a survey among turnaround professionals in Austria.

Assessment of formal proceedings and out-of-court reorganisation: results from a survey among turnaround professionals in Austria.

This study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation in a creditor-friendly bankruptcy system such as that of Austria. From a neoinstitutional perspective, we present different forms of bankruptcy law and the specifics of reorganisation in Austria. Next, we show several distinctive criteria and influencing factors for formal reorganisation and workouts. We group these factors into constitutions and institutional settings, process and handling, and implementation of the reorganisation. Using a sample of 411 survey responses from turnaround professionals, our empirical study analyses the decision criteria for a specific form of reorganisation. We apply a multivariate approach comprising two-sided paired samples Wilcoxon tests to assess the derived hypotheses and a hierarchical cluster analysis. Our results indicate significant differences in the valuation of the two forms: the turnaround professionals rate public perception much higher for out-of-court reorganisation, whereas legal certainty is rated significantly better for formal proceedings. Regarding process and handling, transparency and the handling of blocking positions are arguments for formal reorganisation, whereas flexibility is valuated better for workouts. In terms of implementation, respondents see advantages for out-of-court reorganisation, as it facilitates the implementation of both financial and operational measures. Taxation, the handling of blocking positions, and the improvement of public perception were identified as key development aspects for the legal framework conditions of the various reorganisation forms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Law and Economics provides readers with high-quality theoretical and empirical research in which both the legal and economic dimensions merge and combine. The journal welcomes articles that promote a better understanding of legal phenomena, legal decisions made by judges, courts or regulatory agencies, and involving economic tools. Theoretical papers are welcome, provided they have a strong basis in law and economics. We also welcome case studies, as well as empirical analyses – including empirical legal studies – and experimental investigations. The European Journal of Law and Economics does not favor any particular topic, but does have a focus on new and emerging problems. European themes are particularly welcome, because we feel it is important to exploit Europe’s considerable institutional diversity in order to build a more robust body of theory and empirical evidence. However, the purpose of the journal is also to showcase the diversity of law and economics approaches, as supplied by an international mix of authors. Drawing on the support of respected scholars from around the world, who serve as consulting editors and editorial board members, the Editors wish to give contributing authors the opportunity to improve their papers, while also offering them a quick and efficient review process. Officially cited as: Eur J Law Econ
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信