Примеры использования Non-main proceeding на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Non-main proceeding 49-66 12.
The court declined to do so,recognizing it as a non-main proceeding.
The non-main proceeding was covered in article 17.
Procedure to establish determination of main or non-main proceeding.
That would not mean that a non-main proceeding had no evidentiary value.
Relief upon recognition of a foreign main or non-main proceeding.
A non-main proceeding is one taking place where the debtor has an establishment.
Precondition for recognition:main or non-main proceeding.
In order to be recognized as a"non-main proceeding" a debtor must have"an establishment" in the foreign jurisdiction.
Discretionary relief consequent upon recognition as either a main or non-main proceeding.
The foreign administrator in a foreign non-main proceeding was being given authority to administer assets, prior to any application for relief.
The presumption does not apply if the foreign proceeding is a non-main proceeding.
Presumably no one wanted the representative in a local non-main proceeding to compete with representatives in other countries; in that case, the concern related to coordination.
Secondly, with regard to article 22(3)(a), the foreign proceeding referred to might presumably be a non-main proceeding.
That relief granted to a foreign non-main proceeding should be limited to assets that are to be administered in that non-main proceeding, and;
Perhaps a wording such as“subject to that foreign non-main proceeding” would be better.
The words“falling under the authority of the foreign representative” could be replaced by the words“subject to the control orsupervision of the foreign court in the foreign non-main proceeding”.
It was considered that in such a case the court of the enacting State should treat the foreign proceeding as a non-main proceeding and would cooperate with the foreign court accordingly.
Use of"synthetic non-main proceedings"(where creditors are treated in the main proceeding as if a non-main proceeding had opened) to reduce cost and expense.
He therefore proposed that the last part of paragraph(1), after the wording in square brackets, should be replaced by the words“only as a non-main proceeding”.
Some States might have difficulty in accepting a limitation on local non-main proceedings in paragraph(1)that exceeded that imposed on a foreign non-main proceeding in paragraph 3.
One salient factor to be taken into account in tailoring the relief is whether it is for a foreign main or non-main proceeding.
It was also stated that, as a compromise situation,one could consider allowing the opening of a non-main proceeding where assets, but not an“establishment”, were present if certain conditions were fulfilled.
One particular factor to be taken into account in adapting relief to the circumstances of the case is whether the relief is for a foreign main or non-main proceeding.
Furthermore, distinguishing relief on the basis of a distinction between main andnon-main proceedings(or between more than one non-main proceeding) was not appropriate since the distinction was based more on the scope than on the quality of proceedings. .
Mr. WIMMER(Germany) proposed that a reference to article 17(3) should be included to indicate that, in a non-main proceeding, the power to intervene was restricted.
Article 29(c) incorporates the principle that relief granted to a foreign non-main proceeding should be limited to assets that are to be administered in that non-main proceeding or must concern information required in that proceeding. .
After discussion, the Working Group agreed that the Model Law clearly provided for recognition of only two types of proceedings, foreign main and non-main proceeding.
Also, it was pointed out that the proposed limitation would not by itself avoid the opening of a local proceeding, since a representative in a non-main proceeding might easily circumvent the proposed rule by arranging for a creditor to submit the request for the opening of a local proceeding. .
They further argued that the centre of main interests["COMI"] was located in the United States and that the foreign proceeding should be recognized,if at all, as a foreign non-main proceeding.