text:
Serviços Personalizados
Links relacionados
- Citado por Google
- Similares em Google
PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad
versão On-line ISSN 1727-3781
PER vol.11 no.1 Potchefstroom Jan./Mar. 2008
Cross-border insolvency law in Europe: present status and future prospects
B Wessels
Bob Wessels, Professor International Insolvency Law, Leiden University, the Netherlands, Adjunct Professor International and Comparative Insolvency Law, St. John's University, School of Law, New York, USA
In May 2007 the European countries celebrated the first lustrum of the EU Insolvency Regulation (1346/2000). This article describes where Europe stands with its model which is based on well known theories of private international law for dealing with cross-border insolvencies. The EU Insolvency Regulation provides for a national court to exercise international jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. The basis for international jurisdiction is the debtor's "centre of main interests" or COMI. The two most important cases decided by the European Court of Justice (17 January 2006 Staubitz Schreiber and 2 May 2006 Eurofood) are discussed. The article further analyses the regulation's legal concept and its procedural context and explains that 'financial institutions' are not covered by the Insolvency Regulation, but by separate directives (2001/17; 2001/24). After having taken stock several suggestions are submitted for improvement of the system of cross-border insolvency in Europe.
1 Introduction
In May 2007 Europe celebrated the first lustrum of the EU Insolvency Regulation (number 1346/2000). The regulation is not the only legal measure of such a young age which has influenced cross-border insolvency law in Europe. The 21st century has started with several legislative measures of importance for insolvencies with a cross-border effect in the European Community. In 2000 birth was given to said EU Insolvency Regulation (InsReg), which entered into force 31 May 2002. For several financial institutions, falling outside the regulation's scope, 2001 produced Directive 2001/17 and Directive 2001/24 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings and of credit institutions. Where a regulation is a European Community law measure binding fully the EU Member States, both directives have to go through a legislative implementation process in each individual EEA (European Economic Area) Member State. The implementation date for Directive 2001/24 was 20 April 2003 and for Directive 2001/24 it was 5 May 2004. As far as can be assessed, all EU countries have implemented these directives.[1]
In this article a description is given as to where Europe stands (as per August 2006). On the European level the regulation has introduced a model based on well known theories of private international law for dealing with cross-border insolvencies (see paragraphs 2 and 3). The EU Insolvency Regulation provides for a national court to exercise international jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. The basis for international jurisdiction is the debtor's 'centre of main interests' or COMI. It is discussed in paragraph 4, with a treatment of the two cases the European Court of Justice (of 17 January 2006 and 2 May 2006) has dealt with until now (paragraphs 5 and 6). The EU Insolvency Regulation carries its own legal concept (see paragraph 7). The regulation should be seen in its procedural context, as it fills the gap, which had been left open by the introduction of (what then was) the 1968 Brussels Convention dealing with the international jurisdiction and recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In the context of legal proceedings the latter (now known as the Brussels Regulation 2000) forms the general rule, the regulation (for insolvency judgments) itself forms the special rule. As 'financial institutions' are not covered by the Insolvency Regulation, the latter serves in its turn as a general rule with regard to credit institutions and insurance undertakings, for which entities said Directives 2001/17 and 2001/24 have been issued (see paragraph 8). After having taken stock a list will be drawn of some suggestions for improvement of the system of cross-border insolvency in Europe.
2 Coordinated universality as basic model
The activities of undertakings have more and more cross-border effects and are therefore increasingly being regulated by Community law. While the insolvency of such undertakings also affects the proper functioning of the internal market, there is a need for a Community act requiring coordination of the measures to be taken regarding an insolvent debtor's assets.[2]
So, what is the chosen approach to reach a proper functioning of the internal EU market when confronted with cross-border insolvency cases? These cases include instances where the insolvent debtor has assets in more than one Member State or where some of the creditors of the debtor are not from the state where the insolvency proceeding is taking place. These instances cause a great number of sometimes rather complex legal questions, such as the international jurisdiction of the court which is authorised to open insolvency proceedings, the law applicable to the insolvency proceedings and on the substantial and procedural effects of these proceedings, for example, on the legal position of creditors from abroad and their rights to set-off or the termination of employment contracts, the issue of recognition of proceedings which have been opened abroad, the powers of a liquidator or administrator who has been appointed abroad, etcetera.
From way back, the issues to be solved concerning cross-border insolvencies are being approached from two points of departure: 'universality' and 'territoriality'. In the universality model insolvency proceedings are seen as a unique proceeding reflecting the unity of the estate of the debtor. The proceeding should contain all of the debtor's assets, wherever in the world these assets are located. In this approach the whole estate will be administered and reorganised or liquidated based on the rules of the law of the country where the debtor has his domicile (or registered office or a similar reference location) and in which country the proceedings have been opened. The applicable law for the proceedings and its legal and procedural consequences is the law of the state in which the insolvency measure has been issued. This law often is referred to as lex concursus, lex forum concursus (or: forum law), being the law (lex) of the country where a court (forum) opened insolvency proceeding (dealing with concurring claims of creditors: concursus) and which court is (or has been) charged with hearing, conduct and closure of the proceedings. The liquidator (or administrator) in this approach is charged with the liquidation (or reorganisation) of the debtor's assets all over the world of which the debtor himself (partly) has been divested respectively he is charged with the supervision of the administration of his affairs. The lex concursus determines all consequences of these proceedings, for example, with regard to current contracts, the powers of an administrator and the bases and system of distributing dividends to creditors. The territoriality model on the other hand takes as a basic idea that the respective insolvency measure only will have legal effects within the jurisdiction of the state within the territory of which a court has opened the insolvency proceedings. The legal effects of these proceedings therefore will abruptly stop at this state's borders. The limitations these proceedings will bring to a debtor's legal authority to administer his assets are not applicable abroad. Assets in other countries will not be affected by these proceedings and the administrator who is appointed will not have any powers abroad.
These points of departure form both ends on a scale and are discussed extensively and sometimes sharply in literature.[3] In practice, most countries modify or limit the sharp edges of these theories and have introduced modified or mixed models, mostly referred to as 'modified', 'limited' or 'mitigated' universality (or: universalism), as most of them in their core have a universal element. The EU Insolvency Regulation is based on a mixed model, referred to in this article as 'coordinated' universality.[4]
3 The EU Insolvency Regulation
On 31 May 2002 Regulation (EC) Number 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings entered into force. The regulation applied entirely and directly to the ten Member States, which joined the EU as of 1 May 2004, and to Bulgaria and Romania, when these countries joined the EU as of 1 January 2007.[5] As indicated, a regulation is a European Community law measure, which is binding and directly applicable in Member States.[6] The regulation does not apply to Denmark, as it opted out in accordance with the Treaty of Amsterdam. In the light of the introduction above it should be mentioned that the regulation acknowledges the fact that as a result of widely differing substantive laws in the Member States "it is not practical to introduce insolvency proceedings with universal scope in the entire Community".[7] The differences mainly lie in the widely differing laws on security interests to be found in the Community and the very different preferential rights enjoyed by some creditors in the insolvency proceedings. The goals of the regulation, with 47 articles, are to enable cross-border insolvency proceedings to operate efficiently and effectively, to provide for co-ordination of the measures to be taken with regard to the debtor's assets and to avoid forum shopping. The regulation, therefore, provides rules for the international jurisdiction of courts in a Member State for the opening of insolvency proceedings, the (automatic) recognition of these proceedings in other Member States and the powers of the 'liquidator' in the other Member States. The regulation also deals with important provisions for choice of law (or: private international law). These contain special rules on applicable law in the case of particularly significant rights and legal relationships (for example, rights in rem and contracts of employment). On the other hand, national proceedings covering only assets situated in another Member State than the state of opening are allowed alongside main insolvency proceedings, which have in principle a universal scope. The law of the state of opening spreads its effects all over Europe.
The following provides a quick scan of the contents of the Insolvency Regulation.
The general provisions establish the area of application of the regulation. It is confined to "proceedings which entail the partial or total divestment of a debtor and the appointment of a liquidator".[8] Annex A contains all insolvency proceedings of the Member States; annex C mentions all names of the office holders (in the regulation referred to as 'liquidators'). As far as the jurisdiction of a court is concerned the regulation is based on the general principle that
the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor's main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings.[9]
For a company or legal person, the presumption is that the centre of the debtor's main interests is the place of its registered office, but this presumption may be rebutted (article 3(1) last line). The debate whether indeed a debtor (natural persons, legal persons, except financial institutions) has its centre of main interest (in international jargon: COMI) in a certain jurisdiction has been heard by many courts in Europe. The opened insolvency proceeding is called main proceedings. Its most important consequence is that the law applicable to insolvency proceedings under the regulation is that "of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened",[10] thus: lex concursus, and that the opened proceeding shall be recognised automatically in all other Member States (article 16). In addition, the court of another Member State than the State of opening main proceedings shall only have jurisdiction, if "the debtor possesses an establishment within the territory of that other Member State" (article 3(2)).[11] The effects of the latter proceedings referred to as secondary proceedings are however restricted to the assets of the debtor situated in the territory of the other Member State (article 3(2) last line) and this proceeding may only be a winding-up proceeding. In the framework of main proceedings and secondary proceedings one notes the combination of universality and territoriality, as referred to above.
The 'centre of main interests' (COMI)
should correspond to the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties.[12]
In some 70 percent of all court cases from the mid of 2002 until now the determination of COMI is the principle point of legal conflict[13], with highly debated cases like Daisytek (involving sixteen subsidiaries in UK, Germany and France)[14] and Parmalat (involving Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). The outcome of the question, "where is the centre of main interest?" in these decisions is based on many facts and circumstances, amongst (very many) others the fact that:
(i) The day to day administration is conducted in the forum State (Ireland),[15]
(ii) The directors possessed the forum's nationality (Italy),[16]
(iii) The (Delaware incorporated) company had presented itself to its most substantial creditor as having its principle executive offices in the forum State (England),[17]
(iv) The debtor (natural person) has maintained, with regard to the substantial interests in a large number of companies established in the forum State, to administer these commercial interest in the forum State (the Netherlands),[18]
(v) The director (of an Irish incorporated company, being a wholly owned subsidiary of a UK company) was based in the UK and was solely responsible for the companies business,[19]
(vi) Some remaining contractual works (conducted by a company incorporated in Finland) were still in progress in the forum State (Sweden),[20]
(vii) The group's parent company (of an Austrian company with its seat in Innsbruck) is located in the forum State (Germany),[21]
(viii) The company (registered in the UK with a postal address in Spain) is a partner in a Swedish limited partnership (kommanditbolag) (Sweden),[22]
(ix) The codes to the computer programmes of the debtor company (registered in the UK, postal address in the UK, premises in Sweden) are stored in the forum State (Sweden),[23]
(x) The strategy committee and other board meetings are held in the forum state,[24] and
(xi) The company's bank accounts are located in the forum state.[25]
The regulation provides for several exceptions to the application of the lex concursus, see articles 5-15 InsReg. These exceptions include third parties' rights in rem and reservation of title (articles 5 and 7) and set-off rights (article 6). These rights (under certain conditions) are however not affected by the legal consequences (lex concursus) of the opening of main proceedings. In other instances exclusion is made in that another choice of law (instead of the lex concursus) has been made. Important examples are contracts relating to immovable property (article 8: effects of insolvency proceedings shall be governed by the law of the Member State within the territory of which the immovable property is situated) and contracts of employment (article 10: governed by the law of the Member State applicable to the contract of employment).
Insolvency proceedings opened in the opening state where the debtor has his centre of main interests will be (automatically, article 16) recognised in all the other Member States. Nevertheless, such recognition does not prohibit the opening of secondary proceedings in a state where the debtor owns an 'establishment', article 16(2). The regulation describes furthermore, amongst others, the powers of a liquidator, the publication of the opening judgement in another Member State or in public registers. Any creditor has the right to lodge claims in writing, if his residence is located in a Member State other than the state of the opening of proceedings. This provision is meant also for the tax authorities and social security authorities (article 39).[26] The regulation further provides for a duty to inform known creditors in the other Member State and the language to be used in the specific notice.
In general, the EU Insolvency Regulation only applies to intra-Community relations; in cross-border insolvency cases relating to non-EU states the rules of general private international law or specific legislation of a country (domestic or contained in a treaty) in this field apply.
4 How to determine COMI?
It may follow from the above that courts determine on COMI following the interpretation of a super abundance of facts. In general, it would be submitted, in these court cases one sees the confrontation of two concepts. The first one is a 'Contact with Creditors' (sometimes: 'business activity') approach: through the eyes of creditors a debtor's COMI has to be determined. After all, recital 13 provides that COMI should correspond to the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis "and is therefore ascertainable by third parties" (italics added). A simple example is the case decided by the District Court Dordrecht 23 November 2005.[27] A creditor has filed for insolvency proceedings concerning a debtor on 13 September 2005. The request is dealt with by the Court on 23 November 2005. The debtor, though appropriately summoned, did not appear. The court based its international jurisdiction on article 3(1) in the light of recital 13. It turns out from the public municipal records that the debtor prior to the date of filing, namely 4 May 2005, has left for Belgium. Therefore, according to the court, Belgium is the debtor's COMI unless it is proven that his COMI is in the Netherlands. It is not enough that debtor's small business registration in the Trade Register was crossed out on 11 October 2005, ex officio by the keeper of the register (a date following the date of filing). It has not been proven that the debtor still continues to display activities and the fact that he still has several debts towards the filing creditor is insufficient to assume that his COMI is in the Netherlands; therefore the Dutch courts do not have jurisdiction to open main insolvency proceedings, thus the Dordrecht court.
The other view is the 'Mind of Management' approach (sometimes called: 'Head Quarters', 'head office functions' or 'parental control' approach). An example is the following case of High Court of Justice (Chancery Division Companies Court) 15 July 2005 (Collins & Aikman Europe SA).[28] In the UK an application for administration orders is made concerning 24 companies in the Collins & Aikman Corporation Group, of which one is incorporated in Luxembourg, six in England, one in Spain, one in Austria, four in Germany, two in Sweden, three in Italy, one in Belgium, four in The Netherlands and one in the Czech Republic. The Collins & Aikman Group has its headquarters in Michigan, USA. It is a leading global supplier of automotive component systems and modules to the world's largest vehicle manufacturers, including Daimler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, Porsche, Renault, Toyota and Volkswagen. It has a combined workforce of approximately 23,000 employees and a network of more than 100 technical centres, sales offices and manufacturing sites in 17 countries throughout the world. In Europe it operates 24 facilities in 10 countries with 4,500 staff. Its largest customers are Daimler, Daimler Chrysler, General Motors and Ford, which accounts for approximately 60% of the business of the European operations. The group has in recent years grown considerably, primarily from acquisitions, but it has got into financial difficulties by virtue of its liquidity position and as a result the US operations of the group went into chapter 11 proceedings in the United States in May 2005. The High Court pays attention to recital 13 and several English court decisions regarding the question of the location of the centre of main interests.[29] The norm of recital 13 ("the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is ascertainable by third parties") has to be applied and the court finds its guidance in English literature[30] according to which in order to rebut the presumption that the relevant place is the place of incorporation, it will be necessary to show that 'the head office functions' are carried out in a member state other than the state in which the registered office is situated. The court assesses the evidence from the companies and considers that the main administrative functions relating to the European operations have since 17 May 2005 been carried out from England: cash co-ordination, pooling bank accounts for the European operations, coordination of human resources, operation of the IT system. Furthermore, the court considers that the majority of the sales functions in relation to the European operations are dealt with from England, in particular, the principal customer in Europe, Ford, and accounting for approximately 60% of revenue. All sales to Ford are handled by the Ford Business Unit in England. The court, finally, is satisfied on the evidence that the COMI of each of the non-English companies were not related to the location of their respective registered offices.
From the questions this judgment raises mention now follows only on the nature of the approach. With due respect it is submitted that nor from the history, nor from the recitals or the text of the regulation, it follows that the carrying out of head quarter functions has weight and meaning in the context of deciding the issue of international jurisdiction of a court. It only functions as an explanation for said presumption. Another question is whether this should be the most desirable approach, but to follow it, the text of the regulation should be changed or the European Court of Justice (ECJ) may provide such an interpretation. It is doubted that this will be the case.[31]
5 European Court of Justice 2 May 2006 (Eurofood)
On 2 May 2006 the European Court of Justice published its long awaited judgment, which is also important for the interpretation of COMI. Eurofood IFSC Ltd is registered in Ireland in 1997 as a 'company limited by shares' with its registered office in the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Parmalat SpA, a company incorporated in Italy, whose principal objective was the provision of financing facilities for companies in the whole Parmalat group. On 24 December 2003, in accordance with Decree-Law No 347 of 23 December 2003 (Amministrazione straordaninaria delle grandi impresi in stato di insolvenza or extraordinary administration for large insolvent undertakings),[32] Parmalat SpA was admitted to extraordinary administration proceedings by the Italian Ministry of Production Activities, who appointed Mr Bondi as the extraordinary administrator of Parmalat. On 27 January 2004, the Bank of America applied to the High Court (Ireland) for compulsory winding-up proceedings to be commenced against Eurofood and for the nomination of a provisional liquidator. That application was based on the contention that Eurofood was insolvent. The Irish High Court appointed on the same day Mr Farrell as the provisional liquidator, with powers to take possession of all the company's assets, manage its affairs, open a bank account in its name, and instruct lawyers on its behalf. Two weeks later, on 9 February 2004, the Italian Minister for Production Activities admitted Eurofood to the extraordinary administration procedure and appointed Mr Bondi as the extraordinary administrator. This was followed a day later by an application filed before the District Court in Parma (Italy) for a declaration that Eurofood was insolvent. The hearing was fixed for 17 February 2004, Mr Farrell being informed of that date only on 13 February. On 20 February 2004, the District Court in Parma, taking the view that Eurofood's COMI was in Italy, held that it had international jurisdiction in the meaning of article 3(1) InsReg to determine whether Eurofood was in a state of insolvency.
Back to Ireland: by 23 March 2004 the High Court decided that, according to Irish law, the insolvency proceedings in respect of Eurofood had been opened in Ireland on the date on which the application was submitted by the Bank of America, namely 27 January 2004. Taking the view that the COMI of Eurofood was in Ireland, it held that the proceedings opened in Ireland were the main proceedings. It also held that the circumstances in which the proceedings were conducted before the District Court in Parma were such as to justify, pursuant to article 26 InsReg (public policy exception), the refusal of the Irish courts to recognise the decision of that court. Finding that Eurofood was insolvent, the High Court made an order for winding-up and appointed Mr Farrell as the liquidator. Mr Bondi appeals against that judgment and the Irish Supreme Court considered it necessary, before ruling on the dispute before it, to stay the proceedings and to refer the question regarding COMI to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
On this topic the European Court of Justice 2 May 2006 (Case C-341/04) rules as follows:
Where a debtor is a subsidiary company whose registered office and that of its parent company are situated in two different Member States, the presumption laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, whereby the centre of main interests of that subsidiary is situated in the Member State where its registered office is situated, can be rebutted only if factors which are both objective and ascertainable by third parties enable it to be established that an actual situation exists which is different from that which location at that registered office is deemed to reflect. That could be so in particular in the case of a company not carrying out any business in the territory of the Member State in which its registered office is situated. By contrast, where a company carries on its business in the territory of the Member State where its registered office is situated, the mere fact that its economic choices are or can be controlled by a parent company in another Member State is not enough to rebut the presumption laid down by that Regulation.
The other important decision is that the main insolvency proceedings opened by a court of a Member State must be recognised by the courts of the other Member States, without the latter being able to review the jurisdiction of the court of the opening state. Another judgment of the ECJ is that a decision to open insolvency proceedings for the purposes of article 16's rules of automatic recognition is a decision handed down by a court of a Member State to which application for such a decision has been made, based on the debtor's insolvency and seeking the opening of proceedings referred to in annex A to the regulation, where that decision involves the divestment of the debtor and the appointment of a liquidator referred to in annex C to the regulation. Such divestment implies that the debtor loses the powers of management that he has over his assets. This all means that the judgment based on the application on 27 January 2004 before the High Court (Ireland) must be recognised.
As a follower of the 'contact with creditors' approach personal concurrence is with the decision with regard to COMI. For a company or legal person, the presumption is that the centre of the debtor's main interests is the place of its registered office, but this presumption may be rebutted. The presumption should be taken serious. It only can be rebutted "if factors which are both objective and ascertainable by third parties" enable it to be established that reality differs from the legal form (the formal location at that registered office). The ECJ provides two examples: (i) when a company is not carrying out any business in the territory of the Member State in which its registered office is situated, and (ii) where a company carries on its business in the territory of the Member State where its registered office is situated. In the first example (PO Box companies; sham companies) the presumption may easily be rebutted. In the second example COMI could be in the other Member State, but "the mere fact that its economic choices are or can be controlled by a parent company in another Member State" is not enough to rebut the presumption. Internal 'invisible' (potential) control by the parent will be not or hardly ascertainable. Rebutting the presumption based on these facts does not work. That is only possible if factors which are both objective and ascertainable by third parties would lead to that consequence.
6 European Court of Justice 17 January 2006 (Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber)
In the beginning of 2006 the first full case concerning the application of the Insolvency Regulation has been given by the European Court of Justice on 17 January 2006 (Case C-01/04). The decision also concerns COMI, but this time for a natural person. The applicant for opening insolvency proceedings is Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber, a resident in Germany where she operated a telecommunications equipment and accessories business as a sole trader. She ceased to operate that business in 2001 and requested, on 6 December 2001, the opening of main insolvency proceedings regarding her assets before the Court in Wuppertal. On 1 April 2002, she moved to Spain in order to live and work there. By judgment of 10 April 2002, the Wuppertal Court refused to open the insolvency proceedings applied for on the ground that there were no assets. The appeal brought by the applicant in the main proceedings against that order was dismissed on the ground that the German courts did not have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings in accordance with article 3(1) InsReg, since the COMI of the applicant in the main proceedings was situated in Spain. Susanne brought an appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH German Supreme Court) in order to have the latter order set aside and the case referred back to the court in Wuppertal. She submits that the question of jurisdiction should be examined in the light of the situation at the time when the request to open insolvency proceedings was lodged, or, in this case, by taking account of her domicile in Germany in December 2001. The German Supreme Court refers the following question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:
Does the court of the Member State which receives a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings still have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of his or her main interests to the territory of another Member State after filing the request but before the proceedings are opened, or does the court of that other Member State acquire jurisdiction?[33]
Where is Susanne's COMI? It follows that, in the case in the main proceedings, the national court must determine whether it has jurisdiction in the light of article 3(1). The ECJ indicates that this provision does not specify whether the court originally seized retains jurisdiction if the debtor moves the centre of his or her main interests after submitting the request to open proceedings but before the judgment is delivered. The ECJ considers that a transfer of jurisdiction from the court originally seized to a court of another Member State on that basis would be contrary to the objectives pursued by the regulation. The ECJ submits that the preambles to the regulation express the intention to avoid incentives for the parties to transfer assets or judicial proceedings from one Member State to another, seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position:
That objective would not be achieved if the debtor could move the centre of his main interests to another Member State between the time when the request to open insolvency proceedings was lodged and the time when the judgment opening the proceedings was delivered and thus determine the court having jurisdiction and the applicable law.
Transfer of jurisdiction would also be contrary to the objective of efficient and effective cross-border proceedings and retaining the jurisdiction of the first court seized ensures greater judicial certainty for creditors who have assessed the risks to be assumed in the event of the debtor's insolvency with regard to the place where the centre of his main interests was situated when they entered into a legal relationship with him. Concluding:
The answer to be given to the national court must therefore be that Article 3(1) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor's main interests is situated at the time when the debtor lodges the request to open insolvency proceedings retains jurisdiction to open those proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of his main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but before the proceedings are opened.
It is interesting to note that in the ECJ's approach to the aims and objectives of the Insolvency Regulation the recitals in the preamble are pivotal. Furthermore, emphasis is laid on the interests and the protection of creditors, which seems to function as a forerunner of the ECJ decision in the Eurofood case.[34] On 9 February 2006 the German Supreme Court decided that the judgment of the Wuppertal Court of 10 April 2002 is overturned and the Supreme Court referred the matter for a new decision to the same court.[35]
7 Coordination of proceedings
As noted, a secondary proceeding only can have a winding-up character (article 27). The model of main proceedings in one Member State and concurring secondary proceedings (in one or more other Member States) having this nature, has been criticised. It is submitted however that this limitation flows from the clear desire "to achieve a system of international cooperation that is simple and easy to understand", see Virgós.[36] At the same time, during the preparation of (what now is) the Insolvency Regulation the predominating thought was that
the rules of mandatory coordination and the influence rights given to the main trustee would provide enough means to protect the rescue efforts in the main forum. This line of reasoning explains the rule adopted: secondary proceedings are possible, provided they are of the winding-up type, but they are subject to the ..... main-secondary scheme of coordination.[37]
It is mainly in the power of the liquidator in the main insolvency proceedings to exercise measures for coordination, for example, he may request opening of secondary proceedings in other Member States (article 29), participate in secondary proceedings (article 32(3)), request a stay of the process of liquidation of secondary proceedings (article 33(1)), request termination of this stay (article 33(2)), propose a rescue plan in the context of these secondary proceedings or he may disagree with finalising liquidation in secondary proceedings (article 34(2)). He shall furthermore lodge all claims in the secondary proceedings which have been lodged in the main proceedings (article 32(2)), he is duty bound to communicate information (article 31(1)) and to cooperate (article 31(2)). Both latter obligations are duties for liquidators in secondary proceedings too. The mutual duty between liquidators to communicate and to cooperate symbolises the bridging of the still existing deficit of uniform law. The performance of the obligations to communicate and to cooperate is necessary in order to voice, with regard to all claims, the principle of equal treatment of pari passu ranked creditors.
In a dozen or so separate provisions the Insolvency Regulation gives shape to the idea of 'unity of estate' (there is after all only one debtor), with regard to which he who has the most dominant role (the main liquidator) in principle directs the completion of the insolvency process, under the supervision of a national court. In this process the main liquidator has, with regard to any secondary proceedings, a set of controlling or coordinating (procedural and substantive) powers which he can exert. It is for this reason that for the model of international insolvency law in the system of the EU the description of 'coordinated universalism' is used.
8 The procedural context
The formal insolvency proceedings form the point of view of the Communities' approach to tackle certain problems in cross-border insolvencies, as the Insolvency Regulation is part of a more comprehensive framework with regard to cross-border effects of legal proceedings. The general rule here was already laid down in the 1968 Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Insolvency proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings are excluded from the scope of the 1968 Brussels Convention, which itself has been transformed into a Regulation too as of 1 March 2002.[38] The EU Insolvency Regulation aims to fill this gap. Not all debtors, though, are covered by the Insolvency Regulation. Insolvency proceedings concerning insurance undertakings, credit institutions, investment undertakings, holding funds or securities for third parties and collective investment undertakings are excluded from the scope of the Insolvency Regulation, see article 1(2) InsReg.
The entities and undertakings which fall under the definitions given by the relevant community regulations and directives are excluded from the Insolvency Regulation since they are subject to special arrangements and, to some degree, national supervisory authorities have extremely wide-ranging powers of intervention, see recital 9 of the Insolvency Regulation. The special position of these financial organisations is based on the special role they play in a country's economy (banks typically hold highly liquid liabilities; insurance companies guarantee central interests of policy holders). The EU banking and insurance sector has adopted a single entity approach, which is subject to the supervision of the competent authorities of the state where authorisation valid throughout the community was granted ('single licence' with 'home country control'). In this approach in principle said financial institutions are wound up as one legal entity and therefore, for example, the assets of a bank in its home state jurisdiction are encompassed in the liquidation, which assets include the assets of branches in a host state jurisdiction. This strongly reflects a universality principle. For this reason the directives do not allow the opening of secondary proceedings, as these would hinder the goal of supervision. Both directives furthermore require an early exchange of information between supervising authorities and enable for coordination of reorganisation measures or winding-up proceedings for insurance undertakings and banks with branches in other Member States. Such provisions would seem odd in general insolvency cases and the prevention of financial failure.[39]
9 2002 2007: A positive balance, but improvements are required
A generally felt assessment is that the EU Insolvency Regulation works quite well. The measurement should be taken by assessing the EU Insolvency Regulation's initial aims, centred around: (a) the proper functioning of the internal market (recital 2), (b) preventing the supply of incentives to seek more favourable legal positions (forum shopping, recital 4), (c) improvement of efficiency and effectiveness in cross-border insolvencies, and (d) harmonised conflict of law rules. Compared to the fragmented and uncertain state of affairs of some ten years ago, an enormous step forward has been made in providing a recognisable framework for cross-border insolvency, especially with regard to international jurisdiction, recognition of judgments, choice of law provisions, position of creditors and powers of office holders. Cross-border insolvencies in the EU have become much more predictable and a step in the right direction has been made by the moderate choice for a model of coordinated universality. The significance and influence of the regulation in terms of the search for solutions to problems arising in cross-border insolvencies cannot be overestimated. Insolvency specialists and advisers in the field of financial relationships will have to be more than aware of the regulation's existence and the way in which courts in several jurisdictions have interpreted its provisions. Provisional conclusion therefore: the balance appears to be positive.
On the other hand the handling of cross-border insolvencies within the Community could certainly be improved. Last year a list of 20 recommendations was published, which is by no means exhaustive.[40] For a list of suggestions for improvements, see too the comments of Moss and Paulus[41] and of Omar.[42]
Recommendations in this contribution are presented with the intention of providing food for thought for the evaluation process pursuant to article 46 InsReg. Article 46 provides that no later than 1 June 2012, and every five years thereafter, the commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of the regulation, which shall be accompanied if need be by a proposal for adaptation of the regulation. Observations in this contribution relate among others to the inflexible nature of a regulation as a community measure itself, the lack of a European wide system of registration of openings of insolvency proceedings and related decisions, the uncertainties the conflict of law rules present[43] and the unsatisfactory procedural framework of the regulation. This may be explained by the connection between the origins of the regulation and what is (now) the Brussels Regulation 2002. The Insolvency Regulation aimed to close a gap in the system of international jurisdiction and recognition of judgments relating to civil, commercial and insolvency matters, but courts in Germany and the Netherlands nevertheless have given rulings which are based on the assessment that both regulations were not applicable.[44] Also alignment with other areas of EU law, particularly EU corporate law is lacking, for example, alignment with the (future) EC directives relating to transfers of corporate seats and cross-border mergers and the characterisation of certain rules as falling under the domain of insolvency law or corporate law.[45] In addition, the regulation's compatibility with domestic legal systems of Member States leave much to the activity of Member States, where some guidance from the regulation would have been welcome, for example, articles 31-37 and the lack of any procedural rules.[46] Another group of recommendations relate to the topic of international jurisdiction. As signalled above in dozens of court cases the general description for 'centre of main interest' is not sufficient to encompass all types of debtors, for example, natural persons as private persons, natural persons as professionals, smaller companies and larger (groups of) companies with segregated 'management and control' ('head office functions') and factual operations.[47] In addition, the 'COMI' decision seems to be too 'compressed' as a court's decision on the opening of insolvency proceedings also comprises by matter of law the decision concerning the applicable law, the extension of this law and of the powers of the liquidator throughout Europe.[48] There is no guarantee that the information the court receives is complete, an uncontested decision can be made by a party who has an interest. Several procedural rules lack or seem vague, for example, the procedural rights and duties of parties including creditors to be involved in the 'COMI' decision, including the full and fair opportunity to present the facts and the law of a parties' case and, likewise, the same opportunity to comment on evidence and legal arguments provided by other parties.[49]
10 Building beyond the Insolvency Regulation
At least three other topics deserve to be mentioned in the category of what is not offered under the Insolvency Regulation. As recital 11 indirectly indicates, the Insolvency Regulation is based on the idea, generally accepted over the last few decades, that harmonisation of domestic rules relating to insolvency was impossible given the differences in substantive laws, including preferential rights. See the earlier publication[50] with reference to, for example, differences in the way in which businesses are financed, protection policies of certain interest groups and different cultures in relation to the social phenomenon of 'insolvency'. It should nevertheless be mentioned that several provisions of the regulation are characterised as substantive rules and are therefore now accepted throughout Europe as unified rules concerning the topics to which they relate, see for example articles 7(2), 20, 29-35, 39 and 40. A next step to be taken is an assessment of the topics (procedural; substantial) which may be ready for (degrees of) harmonisation.[51]
Secondly, it is a popular criticism that the regulation lacks provisions concerning groups of companies. It is always with reluctance to criticise the regulation for its lack of provisions relating to the insolvency of one or more companies, which, along with other companies, form a group of corporations. A personal opinion is that critics have paid too little attention to the history of the regulation and its basis in the EC-Treaty as a measure concerning 'procedural law', necessary for the creation of one European 'area of freedom, security and justice', which calls for measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters needed for the proper functioning of the internal market. This area falls within the scope of article 65 of the EC-Treaty. The Insolvency regulation is not related to the development of a system of 'corporate law' or the idea of free establishment as meant in article 42ff of the EC-Treaty. Nevertheless, several court cases demonstrate the need for the regulation to provide a solid set of rules, not just those related to 'international jurisdiction' of a court. Changes could also be considered with regard to the nature of secondary proceedings, to the powers of the main liquidator, the establishment of a committee of creditors which duly represents the involved corporate debtors (parent company and subsidiaries) or certain forms of consolidation and the treatment of inter-company loans.
And finally, Europe's relation with regard to cross-border insolvency to South Africa.
To a great extent the regulation only applies within the territory of the community (except for Denmark). The consequences for debtors or creditors outside of the community are limited.[52] The reason for the limitation can be understood in a historical and political context, but is clearly at odds with growing patterns of globalising business and financial relationships. Commonly, in trading or financial relationships with for example, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey or the USA and South Africa the COMI is located outside the community, thus, a debtor will remain untouched by the Insolvency Regulation. The scope of the regulation could be extended to other countries such as Denmark, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, in a similar manner to that used for the (now) Brussels Regulation 2002 and the connected Treaty of Lugano. In earlier publications[53] the opportunity has been expressed for the EU to closely adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law[54] on an EC level. Compared to some five years ago, though, the option of collective enactment of (large parts of) the Model Law seems far away or at least less realistic, as several European countries have introduced their own approaches of either enacting their versions of the Model Law (Poland, Romania and UK) or their own versions of international insolvency law provisions (for example, Germany, Belgium and Spain) during the last few years. Here it should be noted though that for instance Germany and Spain have extended the conflict of law rules for a large part to other (non EU member) states. In the Netherlands this is seen as a welcome element for a solid system of international insolvency law, which is presently with its Bankruptcy Act of 1896 lacking.
This will be reflected in a draft for new legislation, which may be expected in the near future.
11 Conclusion
The developments which have taken place in the last five years in the area of international insolvency in Europe have been turbulent. There is no time to sit back and relax though. The system of the EU Insolvency Regulation which is in place works, but it could work much better. Some of the suggestions made above may assist in reaching for an even stronger framework for the operation of the regulation and therefore solving more efficiently and effectively cross-border insolvency cases.
Bufford 2006 Columbia Journal of European Law 429
Bufford SL "International Insolvency Case Venue in the European Union: The Parmalat and Daisytek Controversies" 2006 (12) Columbia Journal of European Law 429 [ Links ]
Bufford 2007 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 351
Bufford SL "Center of Main Interests, International Insolvency Case Venue and Equality of Arms: The Eurofood Decision of the European Court of Justice" 2007 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 351 [ Links ]
Collins et al (eds) Conflict of Laws
Collins L et al (eds) Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws 14th rev ed (Sweet & Maxwell London 2007) [ Links ]
Huber Europäischen Insolvenzverordnung 397
Huber U "Inländische Insolvenzverfahren über Auslandgesellschaften nach der Europäischen Insolvenzverordnung" in Schilken E et al (eds) Festschrift für Walter Gerhardt (RWS Verlag Kommunikationsforum Köln 2004) [ Links ]
Janger 2007 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (forthcoming)
Janger EJ "Universal Proceduralism" Paper presented at the symposium Bankruptcy in The Global Village The Second Decade (Brooklyn School of Law 20-21 October 2006) 2007 (32) Brooklyn Journal of International Law (forthcoming) [ Links ]
Kolmann Kooperationsmodelle
Kolmann S Kooperationsmodelle im Internationalen Insolvenzrecht. Empfielt sich für das Deutsche internationale Insolvenzrecht eine Neuorientierung? Schriften zum Deutschen und Europäischen Zivil-, Handels- und Prozessrecht (Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking Bielefeld 2001) [ Links ]
Marquette and Barbé Insolvency Proceedings 419
Marquette V and Barbé C "Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 Insolvency Proceedings in Europe and Third Countries: Status and Prospects" in Nuyts A and Watté N (eds) International Civil Litigation in Europe and Relations with Third States (Bruxelles Bruylant 2005) [ Links ]
Moss and Paulus 2005 Insolvency Intelligence
Moss G and Paulus C "The European Insolvency Regulation The Case for Urgent Reform" 2005 Insolvency Intelligence October [ Links ]
Moss and Wessels (eds) EU Banking and Insurance Insolvency
Moss G and Wessels B (eds) EU Banking and Insurance Insolvency: An Annotated Guide and Comments on the Implementation of EC Directives 17/2001 and 24/2001 in EU Member States (Oxford University Press Oxford 2006) [ Links ]
Omar 2005 European Company Law 59
Omar PJ "The Convergence of Company and Insolvency Initiatives within the European Union" 2005 (2) European Company Law 59 [ Links ]
Omar 2007 Insolvency Intelligence
Omar PJ "Addressing the Reform of the European Insolvency Regulation: Wishlist or Fancies?" 2007 Insolvency Intelligence January [ Links ]
Virgós 1998 Forum Internationale 11
Virgós M "The 1995 European Community Convention on Insolvency Proceedings: An Insider's View" 1998 (25) Forum Internationale 11 [ Links ]
Wessels Insolvency Law 294-311
Wessels B "Insolvency Law" in Smits J (ed) Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law (Edgar Elgar London 2006) 294-311 [ Links ]
Wessels 2005 European Company Law 50
Wessels B "The EC Insolvency Regulation: Three Years in Force" 2005 (2) European Company Law 50 [ Links ]
Wessels 2005 International Corporate Rescue 291
Wessels B "It's Time to Cooperate" Editorial 2005 (2) International Corporate Rescue 291 [ Links ]
Wessels 2006 European Company Law 183
Wessels B "The Place of the Registered Office of a Company: A Cornerstone in the Application of the EC Insolvency Regulation" 2006 (3) European Company Law 183 [ Links ]
Wessels 2006 International Caselaw Alert 68
Wessels B "Twenty Suggestions for a makeover of the EU Insolvency Regulation" 2006 (12) International Caselaw Alert 31 October [ Links ]
Wessels International Insolvency Law
Wessels B International Insolvency Law (Kluwer Deventer 2006) [ Links ]
Wessels International Insolvency Law (2003 ed)
Wessels B International Insolvency Law (Kluwer Deventer 2003) [ Links ]
Wessels Multinational Bank Insolvency 259
Wessels B "A Glance through the Legal Principles and Key Issues of Multinational Bank Insolvency" Paper presented at Insol International Academics meeting on The Treatment of Corporate Groups in Insolvency (Cape Town South Africa 2- 4 April 2004) in Current Topics of International Insolvency Law (Kluwer Deventer 2004) [ Links ]
Wessels Open Insolvency Proceedings 155
Wessels B "International Jurisdiction To Open Insolvency Proceedings In Europe, In Particular Against (Groups Of) Companies" in Current Topic of International Insolvency Law (Kluwer Deventer 2004) [ Links ]
Wessels Realisation 229
Wessels B "Realisation of the EU Insolvency Regulation in Germany, France and the Netherlands" in Current Topics of International Insolvency Law (Kluwer Deventer 2004) [ Links ]
Wessels Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht (forthcoming)
Wessels B "Europe Deserves a New Approach to Insolvency Proceedings" Contribution to the Colloquium Two hundred years Commercial Code of Belgium (Brussels Belgium 23 March 2007) Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht (forthcoming) [ Links ]
Westbrook 2004 Texas Law Review 795
Westbrook JL "The Control of Wealth in Bankruptcy" 2004 (82) Texas Law Review 795 [ Links ]
Register of legislation
Amministrazione straordaninaria delle grandi impresi in stato di insolvenza No 347 of 23 December 2003
Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000
GURI No 298 of 24 December 2003
Register of court cases
BRAC Rent-A-Car International Inc [2003] 1 WLR 40 1421
Court of Appeal Skåne and Blekinge No Ö 21-05 3 February 2005
Court of Stockholm K 17664-04 21 January 2005
District Court Dordrecht LJN: AU7353 23 November 2005
District Court Frankfurt am Main 26 January 2006, ZIP 2006, 796
District Court of Rotterdam 7 June 2006, JOR 2006/52
Eurofood ECJ C-341/04 2 May 2006
German Supreme Court ZIP 2006, 529 of 9 February 2006; NZI 2006, 297
Netherlands Supreme Court JOR 2004/87 9 January 2004
Re Aim Underwriting Agencies (Ireland) Ltd Ch D 2 July 2004
Re Cedarlease Ltd 8 March 2005
Re Ci4net.com Inc
Re Collins & Aikman Europe SA [2005] EWCH 1754 (Ch)
Re Daisytek-ISA Ltd [2004] BPIR 30
Re DBP Holdings Limited Ch D 20 May 2004
Re Eurofood IFSC Limited
Re Hettlage KgaA 4 May 2004
Re Sendo Ltd [2005] EWHC 1604 (Ch)
Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber ECJ C-01/04 17 January 2006
Svea Court of Appeal No Ö 4105-03 30 May 2003
Register of treaties and conventions
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968
Brussels Regulation 2000
Brussels Regulation 2002
Council Regulation 44/2001 22 December 2000
OJL 12 22 December 2001
Treaty of Lugano 1993
Register of Internet resources
Omar 2006 International Case-Law Alert http://www.eir-database.com 19 Feb
Omar PJ "Confronting the Challenge of Diverse Priority Rules through the European Insolvency Regulation" 2006 (10) International Case-Law Alert June [Found on internet] http://www.eir-database.com [ [ Links ]Date of use 19 February 2008]
Pottow 2005 Virg J Int'l L http://ssrn.com/abstract=646962 27 Feb
Pottow J "Procedural Incrementalism: A Model for International Bankruptcy" 2005 45 (4) Virginia Journal of International Law [Found on internet] http://ssrn.com/abstract=646962 [ [ Links ]Date of use 27February 2008]
Rasmussen 2007 Vanderbilt Law and Economics http://ssrn.com/ 18 Feb
Rasmussen RK "Where Are All the Transnational Bankruptcies?: The Puzzling Case for Universalism" Working Paper No 07-13 2007 Vanderbilt Law and Economics [Found on internet] http://ssrn.com/abstract=982678 [ [ Links ]Date of use 18 February 2008]
UNCITRAL Model Law http://www.uncitral.org/ 19 Feb
UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 [Found on internet] http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/insolvency/1997Model.html [ [ Links ]Date of use 19 Feb 2008]
Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2006-09-doc4)
Wessels B "Twenty Suggestions for a makeover of the EU Insolvency Regulation" Blog 2006-09-doc4 [Found on internet] http://www.bobwessels.nl [Date of use 18 February 2008] [ Links ]
Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2007-01-doc16)
Wessels B "The Insolvency Regulation consolidated version" Blog 2007-01-doc16 [Found on internet] http://www.bobwessels.nl [Date of use 18 February 2008]
Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2007-06-doc2)
Wessels B "Applicable Law in Cross-border Insolvency Proceedings" Joint conference of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute on Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (Columbia University School of Law New York City 13 June 2007) Blog 2007-06-doc2 [Found on internet] http://www.bobwessels.nl 19 Feb [ Links ]
Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2007-06-doc3)
Wessels B "The Insolvency Regulation amended annexes" Blog 2007-06-doc3 [Found on internet] http://www.bobwessels.nl [ [ Links ]Date of use 18 February 2008]
[1] For commentaries on both directives and for Member State implementation reviews, see Moss and Wessels (eds) EU Banking and Insurance Insolvency. It should be noted that Denmark is not bound by the Insolvency Regulation (InsReg).
[2] See recital 3 of the InsReg.
[3] See Wessels International Insolvency Law par 10009ff. See also eg, Kolmann Kooperationsmodelle for an expansion on "Models of cooperation in international insolvency law: is a new orientation to be recommended for German international insolvency law?"; Westbrook 2004 Texas Law Review 795; Pottow 2005 Virg J Int'l L http://ssrn.com/abstract=646962 27 Feb; Janger 2007 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (forthcoming) and Rasmussen 2007 Vanderbilt Law and Economics http://ssrn.com/ 18 Feb.
[4] Coordination is to be found especially in the mutual duties for liquidators in insolvency proceedings, pending in different EU Member States, to communicate information and to cooperate, see art 31 InsReg. See also Wessels 2005 International Corporate Rescue 291ff.
[5] A consolidated version of the text of the Insolvency Regulation can be found at Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2007-01-doc16). The Annexes to the Insolvency Regulation have been amended several times, the latest version being of June 2007; see Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2007-06-doc3).
[6] A regulation therefore does not allow 'implementation' as it binds Member States directly. In several countries though, national legislation is (or should be) adopted in order to make the Insolvency Regulation compatible with national procedural law, see for Germany, France and the Netherlands: Wessels Realisation 229.
[7] Recital 11.
[8] See art 1(1) InsReg.
[9] See art 3(1).
[10] See art 4(1).
[11] Art 2(h) provides that for the purposes of the EU Insolvency Regulation an 'establishment' shall mean "any place of operations where the debtor carries out a non-transitory economic activity with human means and goods".
[12] As recital 13 provides.
[13] Sources or extracts of some 200 court cases can be found at http://ww.eir-database.com.
[14] These European subsidiaries were left out of a filing of a Chapter 11 case in the USA (Dallas, Texas) for the overall holding of Daisytek International, Inc.
[15] Court of Dublin 23 March 2004 in Re Eurofood IFSC Limited (Irish company, part of the Parmalat group).
[16] Court of Parma 19 February 2004 in Re Eurofood IFSC Limited.
[17] Court of Leeds (Ch D) 20 May 2004 in Re Ci4net.com Inc and Re DBP Holdings Limited.
[18] Netherlands Supreme Court 9 January 2004, JOR 2004/87, with my commentary.
[19] High Court London (Ch D) 2 July 2004 in Re Aim Underwriting Agencies (Ireland) Ltd.
[20] Svea Court of Appeal 30 May 2003 (No Ö 4105-03; on file with author).
[21] Court of Munich 4 May 2004 in Re Hettlage KgaA.
[22] Court of Appeal Skåne and Blekinge 3 February 2005 (No Ö 21-05; on file with author).
[23] Court of Stockholm 21 January 2005 (K 17664-04).
[24] In Re Sendo Ltd [2005] EWHC 1604 (Ch).
[25] In Re Collins & Aikman Europe SA [2005] EWCH 1754 (Ch).
[26] The High Court of Ireland of 8 March 2005 in Re Cedarlease Ltd considers that the Insolvency Regulation does not expressly provide that a creditor located in another Member State (that is, the Commissioners of Customs & Excise for the UK) shall have the right to initiate insolvency proceedings, but in the court's view, it would defeat the purpose of the Insolvency Regulation if that were not the case.
[27] District Court Dordrecht (The Netherlands) 23 November 2005, LJN: AU7353.
[28] High Court of Justice (Chancery Division Companies Court) 15 July 2005, [2005] EWHC 1754 (Ch) (Collins & Aikman Europe SA), supra n 25.
[29] Including BRAC Rent-A-Car International Inc [2003] 1 WLR 40 1421, and Re Daisytek-ISA Ltd [2004] BPIR 30.
[30] Collins et al (eds) Conflict of Laws 158 Supplement S30.
[31] See Wessels International Insolvency Law. See also Wessels Open Insolvency Proceedings 155; Huber Europäischen Insolvenzverordnung 397; and Bufford 2006 Columbia Journal of European Law 429.
[32] GURI No 298 of 24 December 2003 at 4.
[33] The ECJ first has to deal with the transitional provision of art 43 InsReg, laying down the principle governing the temporal conditions for application of that regulation. The court considers that art 43 must be interpreted as applying if no judgment opening insolvency proceedings has been delivered before the Regulation's entry into force on 31 May 2002, even if the request to open proceedings was lodged prior to that date. That was is in fact the case here, since the request by the applicant in the main proceedings was lodged on 6 December 2001 and no judgment opening insolvency proceedings was delivered before 31 May 2002.
[34] See further my comments regarding ECJ 17 January 2006, JOR 2006/59.
[35] German Supreme Court 9 February 2006, ZIP 2006, 529; NZI 2006, 297.
[36] See Virgós 1998 Forum Internationale 11.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Council Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, OJL 12 of 22 December 2001.
[39] See Wessels Multinational Bank Insolvency 259.
[40] Wessels 2006 International Caselaw Alert 68ff; also available at Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2006-09-doc4).
[41] Moss and Paulus 2005 Insolvency Intelligence.
[42] Omar 2007 Insolvency Intelligence; see also Omar 2006 International Case-Law Alert http://www.eir-database.com 19 Feb.
[43] See Wessels http://www.bobwessels.nl 18 Feb (Blog 2007-06-doc2).
[44] See for instance District Court Frankfurt am Main 26 January 2006, ZIP 2006, 796 and District Court of Rotterdam 7 June 2006, JOR 2006/52. The Frankfurt decision has been referred to the European Court of Justice by the German Supreme Court, with its judgment of 21 July 2007.
[45] See Wessels 2005 European Company Law 50ff and Omar 2005 European Company Law 59ff.
[46] When this article is published, INSOL Europe (an insolvency practitioners' organisation) will publish its European Communication and Cooperation Guidelines for Cross-border Insolvency, drafted by Miguel Virgós and me, which aim to enable liquidators and courts to operate efficiently and effectively in cross-border insolvency proceedings.
[47] The decision of the European Court of Justice 2 May 2006 only provides a first step in clarifying the interpretation of COMI, see Wessels 2006 European Company Law 183ff.
[48] See Bufford 2006 Columbia Journal of European Law 429.
[49] See Bufford 2007 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 351.
[50] Wessels Insolvency Law 294-311.
[51] See Wessels Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht (forthcoming).
[52] Marquette and Barbé Insolvency Proceedings 419ff.
[53] See Wessels International Insolvency Law (2003 ed) and Wessels International Insolvency par 10967ff.
[54] UNCITRAL Model Law http://www.uncitral.org/ 19 Feb.
List of abbreviations
|centre of main interest(s)
|European Court of Justice
|European Economic Area
|EU Insolvency Regulation


text:
David Chew needed a new logo design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 67 designs submitted by 17 freelance designers.
We are a wholesale company that deals in various party products. We are currently launching a new range of items that range from costume dressups, wigs and party favor for children and we need you to come up with some exciting and colourful designs.
We need a theme that will appeal to all age group as our main market will be adults who may be buying for themselves or parents who will be buying products for their children's party.
As our brand is called Party Planet, the theme will have to be somehow related to the name. I have attached samples of similar packaging that is available on the market. The design for the packaging that I need will be one that you believe customers will choose over the others.
Find out how a design contest works or learn more about our logo design services.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Stock and bond markets will be closed on Tuesday, as Hurricane Sandy forced Wall Street to shut down trading for at least a second straight day.
NYSE Euronext and Nasdq OMX Group said they made their decision in consultation with industry executives and regulators, and intend to reopen Wednesday, conditions permitting.
Continue Reading Below
BATS Global Markets, the No. 3 U.S. stock exchange, also said it will be closed on Tuesday. BATS said it was monitoring the situation before providing an update on its Wednesday plans.
"It doesn't make sense to put people in harm's way or to only have half a market," said Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergEx Group in New York. "If just the electronic market was open, that wouldn't provide enough interest, with everything else still closed."
Bond markets, which closed at noon EDT on Monday, will not reopen on Tuesday, a trade group said.
The hurricane could cost NYSE Euronext , CME Group Inc and Nasdaq OMX Group nearly $6 million in trading revenue each full day that stocks and bond markets are closed, Sandler O'Neill analyst Richard Repetto said.
The U.S. stock exchanges' closure on Monday for Hurricane Sandy came on the anniversary - October 29 - of the 1929 stock market crash.
Equities trading executives on Monday had pressed the stock exchanges to clearly communicate their plans to avoid a repeat of Sunday night. Market participants and regulators decided late on Sunday to shut the stock and options markets for the first time due to weather in 27 years, reversing an earlier plan to keep electronic trading going on Monday, leaving some people complaining about the confusion it caused.
The biggest problem with the New York Stock Exchange's initial plan to trade exclusively over its ARCA electronic system was that the contingency plan that it had created in March had not been vetted by many brokerage firms, the sources said.
The decision on whether to keep markets closed on Tuesday comes as Hurricane Sandy began battering the U.S. East Coast on Monday with fierce winds and driving rain. The monster storm shut down transportation, shuttered businesses and sent thousands scrambling for higher ground hours before the worst was due to strike.
In New York, the mass transit system was shut down on Sunday evening, and many Wall Street employees were working from home, although major financial services firms were open for business at least with skeletal staff. Flooding is already hitting parts of Lower Manhattan and parts of New Jersey even before the storm makes landfall.
Financial companies that had flown executives into New York over the weekend for Monday meetings and conferences scrambled to find ways to keep them busy. One firm offered media interviews with portfolio managers stranded in New York after a conference they were attending was canceled.
The decision to close the stock and options market came on Sunday night after SIFMA, the Wall Street trade group, held a conference call around 11 p.m. to debate whether to close, said a brokerage executive, who requested anonymity because he is not allowed to speak to the media.
"It was like trying to corral cats," the executive said.
Peter Kenny, managing director at Knight Capital in Jersey City, New Jersey, said the bigger financial institutions were willing to have staffing to stay open.
"The closer it got to midnight, the less sense it made to do it, because people were willing to do less and less," he said. "Then we got a message that our building in Jersey City, the front doors are going to be sandbagged, so that effectively ended that."
NYSE spokesman Richard Adamonis declined comment on friction with the brokerage community over the on-again, off-again decision to open trading during the storm.
"Through the storm, SIFMA has and will continue to work with a variety of market participants to ensure smooth market function," spokeswoman Liz Pierce said in an email.
The securities industry would have preferred that bond markets had remained closed all day Monday, but the U.S. Treasury department had a bill auction scheduled that had to proceed, two people familiar with the situation said.
Most of the trading activity on Monday in bond markets was in money markets, according to a source at a large Wall Street bank.
Clients have been trying to quickly roll over debt that was coming due Monday and Tuesday in the small window they had this morning before markets close. There was very little to no activity in other markets, the source said.
The stock market's closure means that companies that were looking to go public may have to wait longer. Six initial public offerings currently scheduled to price later this week will likely have to be pushed back, equity capital markets sources said. They added that decisions were being made now between underwriters and the issuers.
"We can't market some of these deals while no one is on the other side of the phone," said one equity capital markets banker at a large Wall Street bank. Some deals may be pushed back to next week after the election, the source said.
A spokesperson for Restoration Hardware, the highest profile of the public offerings set to launch this week, could not be reached for a comment.
Radius Health, which was set to price its $61.8 million IPO later this week, is in a "wait-and-see mode," said Chief Financial Officer Nick Harvey. "We haven't made any decisions yet," he added.
Equity futures continued to trade through Monday morning, closing at 9:15 a.m. EDT. CME Group Inc said it was closing its interest-rate futures trading as of noon EDT.
(Reporting by Jessica Toonkel, Chuck Mikolajczak, John McCrank, Jed Horowitz, Olivia Oran, Lauren Tara LaCapra, Jed Horowitz, Ann Saphir and Ryan Vlastelica; Writing by Rick Rothacker; Editing by David Gaffen, Paritosh Bansal, Lisa Von Ahn and Jan Paschal)


text:
Topic: lawsuit
Apple calls DoJ e-book settlement proposal unlawful, says trial is needed
08/16/2012, 02:08 am
In a strongly-worded legal memo filed on Wednesday, Apple opposed the U.S. Department of Justice's settlement proposal which would have the company dismantle its current e-book business structure with three major publishing houses.
Apple document brags iPhone set the tone for trade show company did not attend
08/15/2012, 10:08 pm
An internal Apple document entered into evidence on Wednesday touts the iPhone's "quiet" presence at the 3GSM Congress Trade Show in 2007, an event at which the company didn't even have a booth.
Judge says 'it's time for peace,' asks Apple and Samsung CEOs to discuss settlement
08/15/2012, 05:08 pm
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday asked that the CEOs of both companies discuss possible settlement options at least once over the phone before the trial moves to jury deliberation next week.
Samsung to call Motorola's "one bullet to kill" witness to justify iPhone royalty demands
08/15/2012, 12:08 pm
After working to defend against for two weeks of Apple's copying claims, Samsung has gone on the defensive to claim that Apple owes it steep royalties for infringing its 3G standard essential patents, using the same witness called by Google's Motorola Mobility to bring standards essential patent claims against Microsoft.
Top Samsung designer denies copying iOS icons while patent expert says Apple design patents should be invalidated
08/15/2012, 01:08 am
In continued Apple v. Samsung court proceedings, a top Samsung designer denied copying Apple's icons, and an expert witness said the Cupertino company's design patents should be invalidated due to prior art.
Judge angered by continued Apple, Samsung courtroom "theatrics"
08/14/2012, 07:08 pm
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Tuesday seemed to have had enough of the parties' legal maneuvering, the latest being an Apple and Intel bid to block testimony from a Samsung witness just hours before he was slated to take the stand.
Samsung accuses Apple of infringing on three patents
08/14/2012, 06:08 pm
Samsung on Tuesday moved forward with arguments in its case against Apple, going on the offensive by alleging the iPhone maker infringed on three patents regarding the usability of multi-feature portable devices like smartphones.
Apple "rubber-banding," "pinch-to-zoom" patents challenged by Samsung witnesses
08/13/2012, 11:08 pm
Samsung on Monday mounted its defense in the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent trial, with the pair of "fact witnesses" giving testimony regarding alleged prior art to Apple's "rubber-banding" and "pinch-to-zoom" patents.
One Samsung exec told company to learn from Apple's iPhone, not copy it
08/13/2012, 07:08 pm
An Apple v. Samsung court document filed on Monday reveals an e-mail in which a top Samsung designer said to "learn through the lessons of the iPhone," not to make replica handsets based on Apple's popular designs.
Three Samsung handsets removed from list of accused devices at patent trial
08/13/2012, 05:08 pm
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Monday ruled Samsung's GT-i9000, GT-i9100 and Galaxy Ace will be removed from the list of devices accused of infringing on Apple's patents.
Apple licensed iPhone, iPad patents to Microsoft, with "anti-clone" restriction
08/13/2012, 02:08 pm
Apple's patent licensing director Boris Teksler testified that the company licensed a series of patents to Microsoft, but failed to reach a licensing agreement with Samsung despite reaching out to the company in October of 2010.
Apple v. Samsung draws line between copying and patent infringement
08/13/2012, 01:08 pm
The inability of Apple and Samsung to agree on proposed jury instructions has hinged upon a few key issues, particularly the distinction between simple copying and patent infringement.
Apple blocks Samsung F700 designer's testimony, calls it irrelevant
08/13/2012, 01:08 pm
Hyong Shin Park, a designer for Samsung, won't be taking the stand in the patent infringement because Apple successfully argued that her testimony has nothing to do with its infringement claims.
Judge "disappointed" over Apple and Samsung jury instructions, orders lead counsel to meet in person
08/13/2012, 12:08 am
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Sunday ordered Apple and Samsung's lead attorneys to meet and hash out final jury instructions, a point of contention since the trial began two weeks ago.
Apple warned Samsung of possible patent infringement in 2010 presentation
08/11/2012, 12:08 am
Boris Teksler, Apple's director of patent licensing and strategy, said late CEO Steve Jobs and then-COO Tim Cook in 2010 warned Samsung that its smartphones may infringe on the iPhone's patents.
Apple wanted Samsung to license patents for $30 per smartphone, $40 per tablet
08/10/2012, 10:08 pm
According to court documents made public on Friday, Apple in 2010 offered Samsung a $30 per smartphone/$40 per tablet license deal for use of the Cupertino company's patents.
Samsung designer says smartphone inspired by 'bowl of water,' not the iPhone
08/10/2012, 08:08 pm
In an opposition filing on Friday, Samsung argued the Apple v. Samsung jury should hear testimony from Hyoung Shin Park, principal designer of the contested F700 smartphone that the company's attorneys want to use as proof of non-infringement on Apple's design patents.
Samsung attorney argued in court without proper license to practice
08/10/2012, 05:08 pm
It was discovered Thursday that Samsung lawyer Susan Estrich represented the company in Apple v. Samsung despite not having the proper license to practice law in the suit's jurisdiction of the Northern District of California, a mistake seen as yet another gaffe in the South Korean company's case management.
Trial expert testifies 38% of consumers confused Samsung design for Apple products
08/10/2012, 01:08 pm
Apple has entered the results a consumer study into evidence which indicates that up to 37 percent of users surveyed confused Samsung's mobile designs with Apple's iconic products.
Court docs reveal Samsung sold 21M phones, 1.4M tablets worth $8B in US since 2010
08/09/2012, 08:08 pm
A court document filed by Samsung on Thursday revealed the company's smartphone and tablet sales numbers from June 2010 to June 2012, metrics that have been kept strictly confidential until now.


text:
Ray Pittman needed a new web page design and created a contest on 99designs.
A winner was selected from 65 designs submitted by 13 freelance designers.
Build Your Firm
We are a medium-sized firm that specializes in providing websites to accountants and CPAs. We've been in business for over 8 years and we currently have over 300 clients. In addition to providing web site services, we do search engine optimization for these sites as well.
Small to medium-sized Accountants and CPA (Certified Public Accountant) firms. Their goal is to attract new customers, both businesses (like construction, health care) and individuals.
(due to the limitation on the amount of text, we will include an attachment with more information)
Our firm deals with two types of firms: First is the small accounting firm with a sole proprietor. This client is uncomfortable projecting an image of a larger, more comprehensive firm. They tend to be in smaller cities/towns and want to project a local, friendly, simple accountant feel.
Second type of firm doesn't mind projecting an image of a larger, more modern accounting firm that offers a wide range of services. The layouts we are looking for would fall into one of these two categories. For this contest please choose which ever type you feel most comfortable developing for. We optimize the sites around the client's local marketing area so avoid anything that suggests global firm.
All entries must be submitted in Photoshop or Illustrator compatible file formats.
As far as colors, we tend to stick to traditional colors and muted contemporary / modern colors. Nothing too bright or shocking. Every template is going to have to have multiple color schemes, on average 6. Only one color scheme is required for submission.
Overall, we are looking for a designing partner. The winner of this contest can be reasonably sure of a continuing relationship.
We require the creation of one front page and an inner page. For the inner page please duplicate the content of http://www.buildyourfirm.com/~cpaju…_books.htm.
You can see our portfolio at http://buildyourfirm.com/flash/TIG.htm


text:
Car Pictures GalleryToyota Corolla Specs | Toyota Forum | Toyota Corolla Reviews | Do you have problems with car?
Car Directory
» Toyota
» Corolla
» 1994
» Used Cars For Sale
» Write a Review
Used 1994 Toyota Corolla Pictures For Sale
Used Toyota Corolla
The Corolla is offered as a 4 door sedan with a 1.8-liter/120-horsepower inline-four with a manual transmission. 3 and 4-speed automatics are available as is ABS.
|Used Cars For Sale | Car Specifications | Automotive Troubleshooting | New & Used Car Reviews | Privacy Policy
Used 1994 Toyota Corolla For Sale


text:
» Next Herend Collection:
Indian Basket
Shell with Dolphin Stand - Multicolor
The calendar still says winter but inside spring has sprung!
Read more
Queen Victoria Dined On It.
Princess Diana Delighted To
It In Her Christmas Stocking.
Now Savor A Special Herend
Experience Of Your Own.
Herend is a sound investment in hand painted art, but not the sort to admire from afar. Its durable...Read More »
figurines, fine china, dinnerware


text:
Artikel fra lupus.org
50 Years Without a New Lupus Drug
We Need to Share Stories with Congress and
Encourage Researchers to Keep Up Their Efforts
It's Time for People with Lupus to Make Their Voices Heard!
Thursday, November 20, 2008 will mark an unfortunate anniversary. On that date, it will be 50 years since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last approved a drug specifically to treat lupus.
A half century is a long time to be waiting for safer and more effective treatments for a disease that affects an estimated 1.5 million Americans and at least five million people worldwide.
We need to let Members of Congress know that they must provide more funds to conduct the basic research that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies need to develop new treatments for lupus.
At the same time, we want to express our collective gratitude to the hundreds of researchers and industry executives who have been working tirelessly for many years to bring scientific discoveries from the bench to the bedside.
So what does 50 years without a new lupus drug mean to you?
No one is more qualified to speak out about the need for better treatments than individuals with lupus who have no option but to keep using the outdated drugs that were approved for lupus when Dwight Eisenhower was still president and can have side effects worse than the primary disease.
How can people with lupus help? Share their story!
We want people affected by lupus to send a two part email message to firstname.lastname@example.com, hopefully before November 20, but as soon as possible.
In the first part of the email, write a short message (about 150 words) that explains to Members of Congress what 50 years without a new lupus drug means to you. In the second part of the email, write a short note of appreciation that explains to researchers and industry executives how grateful you are for their efforts to develop new safe and effective treatments for lupus.
Please include your first and last name and your city and state in your email. If possible (but certainly not required), please also attach to your email a clear photo of yourself so we can personalize your message.
LFA will use your email message in several ways to help advance the science of lupus!
1. Deliver your message to Congress. During the LFA's Annual Advocacy Day, lupus advocates will deliver your story, and the stories of others, to policymakers in Washington, DC. Be sure to include your name and your city and state in your message so we can deliver your story to your Representative.
2. Feature selected stories on the LFA website. While we are not able to promise that we can post every message and photo we receive, we will review each one and post as many as possible to our website and in our blog so the public also can learn about the impact that 50 years with no new drug has on people with lupus and their families.
3. Share your "Thank You" notes with Researchers and Industry Executives. Today there are hundreds of dedicated researchers and executives from pioneering biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies working hard to advance the science of lupus and conduct clinical studies of nearly 30 potential new treatments for lupus. We want these individuals to know how much you appreciate their continued focus on lupus.
We Need Your Help Now! Act Today!
Send your message and photo today (or by November 20) to email@example.com. Then, on Thursday, November 20, visit our website to read the messages and learn how the LFA is taking steps to address this urgent problem.
Ask Others To Get Involved!
Please share this request with others who also have been waiting as long as five decades for a new lupus treatment! Together, we can raise awareness of this issue and urge our elected leaders to provide increased funds for research to find ways to develop safer and more effective targeted therapies for lupus.


text:
I'd do that car for $250. I don't have 40% though, either 35% or 50%.
hey did you say that you do window tinting? i was just wondering what you would charge on a 08 lancer i was all 5 windows done. 5% on the back and 40% on the front two.
Send an Instant Message to treimche Using...
2007 ricer of the year!


text:
Here I am. I haven't gone very far. Just across the main avenue that divides our busy little central business district into two. Thank you for all your warm wishes and greetings of luck on our move! We have successfully installed ourselves in the temporary flat, which is located in the same building as our new/old flat that we will be calling our home. We'll be staying here until early next year while our soon-to-be home (some floors below us) gets a much needed face lift.
I must confess to slight nostalgic twinges for our old home and our old neighbourhood (we still make it to the market there) but I am growing very fond of our new one. I'm much closer to another weekend market (which I've also frequented in the past). The sidewalks seem bigger and I see more trees around. The view is much better too – still a city view, meaning building and more buildings, but at least none of them are condemned or under construction…and the afore-mentioned trees add a touch (albeit a very small touch) of green 🙂 Anyway, I actually love looking at other buildings***. Oh and we have a teeny-tiny balcony…my kaffir lime plant can finally know what it feels like to live in the outside world!
On the cooking front, we have managed not to totally fall into the trenches of store-bought food, thank goodness. Plus renovation is hungry work so best to be prepared with something a little more substantial than a convenience store bun!
Asian Style Meatballs
- 500 grams ground pork
- 1/2 tablespoon sea salt
- 1 teaspoon black pepper
- 1/8 – 1/4 teaspoon dried chili flakes (depends how spicy your chili is…mine is from Thailand and very spicy)
- 6 cloves garlic, minced
- 1 teaspoon grated ginger
- 1 tablespoon chopped fresh cilantro (leaves and upper stem parts)
- 1/4 cup brown sugar (scant, not packed)
- 1/4 cup bread crumbs
- 1 tablespoon fish sauce (patis)
- 1/4 cup Ilocos vinegar (sukang Iloco)
– In a bowl mix salt, pepper, chili flakes, garlic, ginger, cilantro, and sugar until well blended.
– In a bigger, non-reactive bowl, place ground pork. Add vinegar and fish sauce, then sprinkle with bread crumbs.
– Add the spice mix from step one to the pork and mix with your hands until incorporated.
– Cook a small amount of the mince mix to taste and adjust seasoning (and cook and taste again) as needed.
– Leave the mince mix in the fridge for an hour.
– After the mixture has rested, shape into balls, patties, or logs and fry until just done…do not overcook! Watch them to make sure the sugar does not burn.
– Serve immediately. Serves 4.
This dish was inspired by two (well, three actually) bloggers' attempts at making their own, homemade, Filipino longanisa. Longanisa is our local sausage and every corner of this archipelago has their own version. One blogger is Marvin of Burnt Lumpia who I have long admired for his tireless dedication to learning Filipino cooking. His family is from a region in the Philippines (Ilocos) known for their delicious longanisa. The other bloggers are JS and TS of [eatingclub] vancouver who shared their old yaya's (nanny) recipe. Now, how did it go from Filipino longanisa to "Asian Style Meatballs"? I added a bit of this and a bit of that, searched the internet some more, and ended up with what you have here. That's not to say you can't turn these back into Filipino Longanisa. If you omit the ginger and cilantro, form the mince into little logs, and fry or grill, you should have your own version of longanisa!
C and I (and our friend who dropped by last night) both enjoyed this! The meatballs came out tremendously flavour-packed! The garlic, ginger and cilantro all came through beautifully, the chili added just the right amount of heat, and the sugar worked perfectly in tempering these potent flavours. The fish sauce (patis) adds a more rounded savoury-ness than salt and I'll be trying an all fish sauce-no salt version next time.
These go very well with some (Thai) sweet chilli sauce for dipping and I imagine would make a jaunty addition to a spread of appetizers. You can also shape the mince into little patties and cook up a noodle salad much like this one. You can freeze the shaped balls (or patties or logs), uncooked, as an emergency stash…just in case your contractor or designer is in need of some sort of bribing! 😉
***Does anyone else have this strange insectile fixation? It gives me a peculiar sense of pleasure to gaze at a zillion other windows, imagining the zillion other lives going on behind them. I can stand like this for quite some time, oddly entranced.


text:
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Logarithm Formulas
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge - Enrico Fermi.
Nothing is better than reading and gaining more and more knowledge - Stephen William Hawking.
Last edited by Ricky (2006-04-04 04:11:44)
"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."
Logarithm of a Complex Number
where k is an integer.
(which is log(xy) = log x + log y)
Last edited by Devanté (2006-08-05 19:10:52)
Last edited by Devanté (2006-10-06 23:23:57)
Can anyone explain Devante's post #7? He says
Can anyone prove the following....
((2/3)^k)n = 1
Required to prove,
k is equal to log of n on base 3/2
Hi random_fruit;
It could be a quiz problem and I agree it appears to have only 1 solution in R.
Last edited by bobbym (2009-04-19 19:44:38)
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
hey ganesh jus a little thing
if we take A and B of the same signs
and in the other ones also... the argument has to be alwys positive
Everything that has a begining has an EnD!!!
Hi Shekhar,
Here is the solution.
((2/3)^k)n = 1
⇒(2/3)^k = 1/n
⇒(2/3)^k = n-¹
Applying log on both sides.
⇒k log(2/3) = -log n
Multiplying (-) on both sides
⇒k log(2/3)-¹ = log n
⇒k log(3/2) = log n
∴ k = (log n)/(log (3/2))
⇒ k = log n base (3/2)
Can anyone prove the following....
((2/3)^k)n = 1
Required to prove,
k is equal to log of n on base 3/2
Pages: 1


text:
Located in the Intracoastal West area at the heavily traveled intersection of Atlantic and Kernan Boulevard. This shopping center is currently in development. Reserve your space now!
Join our tenants:
View Property
Immediately adjoining Kernan Village this premiere development provides convenience and style to the most densely developed residential area of the city.
Campus Corners Retail Center is located on the Northside, near Dunn Avenue and Interstate 295.
Located on the Northside. Spaces have exceptional visibility. The Villages of Amelia Island will have 134,399 square feet of commercial space, including a 75,000-square-foot store.
Located on the Westside, Chaffee Square is about 30 acres of land and a total 150,000 feet of retail. Currently accepting tenants to fill commercial lots. The colors and patterns of the property will resemble the West Regional library on Chaffee Road.


text:
Fan Artisan
Fan Artisan was a science fiction fanzine edited by Jerri Bullock and Russ Manning in the U.S.A. and published by Fantasy Artisans in 1948.
Both editors were members of Fantasy Artisans, a correspondence club for fans interested in fantasy and science fiction artwork. Members included Bullock and Manning as well as Ken Brown, Jon Grossman, Bill Kroll and later, Frank Dietz. They exchanged information about drawing techniques, stencilling, as well as offering critiques of each other work, and information about requests from fanzine editors for art. Fan Artisans was the first publication to come from the club.
Both editors were contributors of art work to other fanzines. Jerri Bullock had previously contributed cover art to Fantastic Worlds, Loki and Science, Fantasy, and Science Fiction; Russ Manning had been featured in The Fanscient, Fantasy Advertiser, Science, Fantasy, and Science Fiction and Scientifantasy. Fan Artisan was primarily devoted to art work.
Manning went on to do the art work for comics, including Dell Comics, and returned to science fiction with the comic series, "Magnus, Robot Fighter 4000 A.D." After this, he did the Tarzan daily comic strip for United Features Syndicate. His last work was on the "Star Wars" comic.
One issue of Fan Artisan appeared before Russ Manning went back to college and Jerri Bullock decided to incorporate the zine with the photo offset printed Science, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, which became the official organ of The Fantasy Artisans Club in October, 1948. The second issue of Fan Artisan appeared as a split zine with the third issue of Science, Fantasy, and Science Fiction. The fourth issue of Science, Fantasy and Fiction incorporated Fan Artisan, which then no longer existed as a separate publication.


text:
By ,
Published January 13, 2015
The Detroit Lions have signed their top draft pick, defensive end Ziggy Ansah.
The team's website said Ansah inked a five-year deal Friday morning. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Ansah was selected with the fifth overall pick in April's draft. The BYU product started just nine games in his senior year, posting 62 tackles, 4 1/2 sacks and 13 tackles for loss. He had a dominating performance at the Senior Bowl to raise his draft status, notching 3 1/2 tackles for loss and 1 1/2 sacks.
The Lions had previously come to terms with the other eight members of their draft class: cornerback Darius Slay, guard Larry Warford, defensive end Devin Taylor, punter Sam Martin, receiver Corey Fuller, running back Theo Riddick, tight end Michael Williams and linebacker Brandon Hepburn.


text:
Your First Choice
for Motorcycle, ATV, Snowmobile, and Personal Watercraft Parts, Accessories, and Apparel
Use our cutting edge Make/Model/Year search to find the exact parts that fit your ride in seconds. Sort through thousands of options for riding gear, casual apparel and more to find what's right for you in the blink of an eye. Why waste time? Get the right gear fast and get back outside!Shop now


text: On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, John Hearns wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 19:38, llwaeva at 21cn.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am running 8-node LAM/MPI parallel computing system. I found it's > > trouble to maintain the user accounts and software distribution on all > > the nodes. For example, whenever I install a new software , I have to > > repeat the job 8 times! > There are several answers to this question, > which you can learn about by staying on this group, and consulting > online resources. > > A quick answer is that you could construct the cluster using one of the > toolkits, such as Rocks or Warewulf - many others. > > And a very quick answer to your current dilemma. There are utilities > which allow parallel execution of commands on a set of machines, > or even to have a terminal session in parallel across a set of machines. > > Once you have a server (below) you can rsync each node to that. For software distribution, I use systemimager from the Systeminstaller Suite. It simplifies using rsync for managing images of nodes, and works well even across cluster (I have 4 clusters running off one server, that is also the master node of a cluster). > > The most annoying thing is that the > > configuration or managment of the user accounts over the network is a > > heavy job. Someone suggests that I should utilize NFS and NIS. However, > > in my case, it's difficult to have an additional computer as a server. > Not meaning to be rude, but you are wrong there. > Just use one of your compute nodes as the server. The additional CPU > load will not be great. > You should use some sort of centralised account management NIS or LDAP. I've recently deployed LDAP at SHARCNET and it really simplifies the account management process. I still nfs mount home accounts, but I used to rcp the passwd,shadow, and group files around. This made it difficult for users to maintain there account info, and had a long delay to propigate to 200+ busy machines. > Even if you point blank refuse to do that, a cron job to rsync the > relevant files will help cut down your admin load. > > And remember - eight machines may not seem a lot. But what happens if > you make a mistake on one machine, or one machine is down when you are > adding an account or software. Are you sure to run identical commands by > hand the next time it is up? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf > -- Gary Molenkamp SHARCNET Systems Administrator University of Western Ontario gary at sharcnet.ca http://www.sharcnet.ca (519) 661-2111 x88429 (519) 661-4000


text:
SAN FRANCISCO BALLET Opening Night Gala: PHENOMENAL - Intermission & DinnerJanuary 22nd, 2014
Patricia Ferrin Loucks, show more of Patricia Ferrin Loucks photos or correct name Alison Carlson, show more of Alison Carlson photos or correct name Kelsea Carlson, show more of Kelsea Carlson photos or correct name Michelle Molfino, show more of Michelle Molfino photos or correct name Lori Shigekane show more of Lori Shigekane photos or correct name
Perfect for printing with no watermark up to 8x12. If you need something larger, we can usually do a custom print.
Perfect for screen and social, but not great to print. There is a small watermark in the lower right corner (you can crop it out).
For a commercial or editorial license, please email firstname.lastname@example.com.