Talk:Receivership/Archives/2016

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Receivership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913212126/http://www.mlive.com:80/kzgazette/news/index.ssf/2008/09/courtappointed_receiver_now_co.html to http://www.mlive.com/kzgazette/news/index.ssf/2008/09/courtappointed_receiver_now_co.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge requests
There are a couple of different merge requests on different articles, and I think there is a risk of things getting a little blurry. So apologies if I set my views out in some length:
 * Receivership and administrative receivership are very similar, and should largely be covered by the same article (as they are at present). Admin receivership is just a subset of the wider form of receivership.
 * However, administration orders are something quite different. I appreciate that under UK insolvency law, admin orders have largely taken the place of administrative receivership (but not wider forms of receivership) but in most other common law countries they remain pretty firmly separate.
 * Similarly, I don't think examinership should get merged in. It is just a different legal concept.  Same sort of aim, but different legal system and different requirements.  If we wanted to wrap everything similar in, we would also sling US chapter 11 in there.

So in short, I am against both merge proposals for the above reasons.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 19:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)