{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013736263736263736, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.451327433628318, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Regulation of Receiverships

Receivership law is different from bankruptcy law and commercial restructuring law in that it is not a creature of statute. Whereas the bankruptcy and restructuring regimes are legislatively created, receivership law emerged out of English common law. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have chosen to pass statutes that regulate certain features of receivership law. However, these approaches are markedly different. A comparative survey of these legislative approaches together with a review of the theoretical literature will be used to evaluate if the Canadian approach to regulation is the best means of realizing the underlying goals and objectives of receivership law.