{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"Examining Success - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"r2oCNw1D8A\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/examining-success\/\">Examining Success<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/examining-success\/embed\/#?secret=r2oCNw1D8A\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Examining Success&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"r2oCNw1D8A\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/08\/Lipson-Chapter11-February2015.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code presumes that managers will remain in possession and control of a corporate debtor. This presents an obvious agency problem: these same managers may have gotten the company into trouble in the first place. The Bankruptcy Code thus includes checks and balances in the reorganization process, one of which is supposed to be an \u201cexaminer,\u201d a private individual appointed to investigate and report on the debtor\u2019s collapse. We study their use in practice. Extending prior research, we find that examiners are exceedingly rare, despite the fact that they should be \u201cmandatory\u201d in large cases ($5 million in debt), and are recommended in all, if \u201cin the interests of creditors.\u201d Using a hand-collected dataset (n=1225) of chapter 11 bankruptcies from 1991-2010, we find that they are sought in less than 9% of cases (104), and appointed in fewer than half of those (48, or 3.9% of the sample). We offer three observations about the under-use of examiners. First, regression modeling shows that the factors that predict when an examiner will be &hellip;"}