The European Union goes Comi-tose: hazards of harmonizing corporate insolvency laws in the global economy.

(36.) Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1-3813 (Sept. 27, 2005); Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1078 (May 2, 2006).

(37.) Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1-3813, paras. 47-88 (Sept. 27, 2005).

(38.) Id.

(39.) Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Eurofood IFSC, Ltd.), 2006 E.C.R. 1078, para. 54 (May 2, 2006).

(40.) Id. paras. 55-58.

(41.) See Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1-3813, para. 105 (Sept. 27, 2005). Article 3 of the E.U. Insolvency Regulation provides for the opening of two types of insolvency proceedings: (1) a main proceeding in the jurisdiction that is the COMI; and (2) secondary proceedings limited to the winding up of assets situated in particular jurisdictions that are not the debtor's COMI. See E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5.

(42.) See Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1-3813, para. 152 (Sept. 27, 2005) (answering the Irish court's questions). The significance of such a decision is that a secondary proceeding under the E.U. Insolvency Regulation must be a winding up proceeding. E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5. However, the extraordinary administration proceeding, or amministrazione straordinaria, is not considered a winding up proceeding under the E.U. Insolvency Regulation. See E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5, L160/16-18.

(43.) See 3 COLLIER INT'L BUS. INSOLVENCY GUIDE [paragraph] 28A.01[2] (Richard F. Broude et al. eds., 2006).

(44.) An insolvency proceeding under the language of the E.U. Insolvency Regulation is defined as "the collective proceedings referred to in Article 1(1). These proceedings are listed in Annex A." E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5. Annex A lists a breakdown of proceedings on a country-by-country basis. See id., Annex A, at 14-15. Such proceedings in Italy include amministrazione straordinaria, or extraordinary administration. Id. In Ireland, an insolvency proceeding includes a compulsory winding up by the court, bankruptcy, and other procedures. Id. Furthermore, the E.U. Insolvency Regulation only applies to "insolvency proceedings which entail the partial or total divestment of a debtor and the appointment of a liquidator." Id. art. 1(1), at L160/4.

(45.) See VIRGOS, supra note 29, at 21.

(46.) Id.

(47.) A liquidator is "any person or body whose function is to administer or liquidate assets of which the debtor has been divested or to supervise the administration of his affairs." E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5.

(48.) Id. Other terms defined are winding up proceedings, court, judgment, the time of the opening of proceedings, the member state in which assets are situated, and establishment. Id.

(49.) "The 'centre of main interests' should correspond to the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interest on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties." Id. at L160/2.

(50.) "The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor's main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. In the case of a company or legal person, the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary." Id., art. 3(1), at L160/5.

(51.) See VIRGOS, supra note 29, at 38.

(52.) Id.

(53.) See, e.g., In re Eurofoods, [2005] I.L.Pr. 2, 2004 WL 3222613 (July 27, 2004) (Ir.); Lynn M. LoPucki, Global and Out of Control?, 79 AM. BANKR. L.J. 79, 95 (2005) [hereinafter LoPucki, Global and Out of Control?] (noting that if the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules for the first court to hear the case are binding on later courts, it would "be a green light for court competition").

(54.) E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/3; see also Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1-3813, para. 39 (May 2, 2006) (discussing Recital 22 of the E.U. Insolvency Regulation, calling it the "rule of priority"). This Recital plays an important role in cases decided by the ECJ. See, e.g., Case C.341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. I-3813 (Sept. 27, 2005) (discussing the E.U. Insolvency Regulation in detail). The Recital seems to demand the competing member state's immediate recognition of another member state's proceeding as the main insolvency proceeding regardless of the possibility that the competing member state may be the debtor's COMI. See E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/3.

(55.) See Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. I-3813, para. 102 (Sept. 27, 2005) (discussing the court's view that Recital 22 calls for the Italian courts to recognize the Irish court's actions).

(56.) See id. The ECJ held that the Irish court acted first and demonstrated sufficient grounds to qualify Ireland as the center of Eurofood's main interests. Id.

(57.) Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2006 E.C.R. 1-3813, paras. 39-44 (May 2, 2006). The ECJ in the Eurofood case allowed the Irish court to disregard the Italian court's holding as a rare public policy exception. E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/9; Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., CELEX No. 604O0341, 2004 WL 3168085, para. 151 (Sept. 15, 2004).

(58.) E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5. "Main insolvency proceedings and secondary proceedings can, however, contribute to the effective realization [sic] of the total assets only if all the concurrent proceedings pending are coordinated. The main condition here is that the various liquidators must cooperate closely, in particular by exchanging a sufficient amount of information." Id. at L160/3.

(59.) See Case C-341/04, Bondi v. Bank of Am., N.A., CELEX No. 604O0341, 2004 WL 3168085, paras. 92-105 (Sept. 15, 2004) (concluding that Ireland maintains jurisdiction over the main Eurofood insolvency proceeding).

(60.) See 11 U.S.C.A. [section] 1501 (West Supp. 2006) (noting the purpose of Chapter 15 is "to incorporate the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency so as to provide effective mechanisms for dealing with cases of cross-border insolvency").

(61.) Id. For a better explanation of the changes introduced by Chapter 15, its intricacies, and its purposes, see Jay Westbrook, Chapter 15 at Last, 79 Am. Bankr. L.J. 713, 721-28 (2005).

(62.) See 11 U.S.C.A. [section] 1528.

(63.) Id. [section] 1501(b) (listing the circumstances under which an American court may open a case under Chapter 15).

(64.) See id. [section] 1501(b)(4). The ability of foreign representatives to open proceedings in the United States based on foreign proceedings was not a new concept. See Westbrook, Chapter 15 at Last, supra note 61, at 716 (noting that Chapter 15, with some modifications, replaced the previously-existing Section 304 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code).

(65.) 11 U.S.C.A. [section] 1502(4).

(66.) See Westbrook, Chapter 15 at Last, supra note 61, at 719-20; see, e.g., 11 U.S.C.A. [section] 1502(4).

(67.) 11 U.S.C.A. [section] 1516(c).

(68.) See E.U. Insolvency Regulation, supra note 29, at L160/5.

(69.) See infra Part IV (discussing the different policies employed by America, Italy, and Ireland and the implications of such differing policies).

(70.) 351 B.R. 103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006).

(71.) Id. at 106-07.

(72.) Id. at 107.

(73.) Id.

(74.) Id.

(75.) Id. at 109. A preference payment is discussed in Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code and, generally speaking, is a payment made by the debtor to a specific creditor within a certain number of days to the debtor's petition date that may be viewed as unfairly preferential to the paid creditor and detrimental to other creditors. See 11 U.S.C.A. [section] 547 (West Supp. 2006).

(76.) In re SPhinX, 351 B.R at 109.

(77.) Id. at 117-22.

(78.) Id.

(79.) See Daniel M. Glosband, SPhinX Chapter 15 Opinion Misses the Mark, AM. BANKR. INST. J., Dec./Jan. 2007, at 44, 84.

(80.) Id.

(81.) Id.

(82.) Id.

(83.) OMAR, supra note 22, at 23 (noting a court's decision to "adhere to the universality or territorialism principle has a bearing on the overall question of the conduct and efficiency of insolvency proceedings").

(84.) Id.

(85.) See Samuel L. Bufford, Global Venue Controls Are Coming: A Reply to Professor LoPucki, 79 Am. Bankr. L.J. 105, 108-17 (2005) (discussing the influence these theories have had in developing international insolvency policy); LoPucki, Global and Out of Control?, supra note 53, at 84-89; Lynn M. LoPucki, Universalism Unravels, 79 AM. BANKR. L.J. 143, 147 (2005) [hereinafter LoPucki, Universalism Unravels] (implying that a universalist system is "about to be thrust on the world").

(86.) For further discussion of the arguments between universalism and territorialism, see Andrew T. Guzman, International Bankruptcy: In Defense of Universalism, 98 MICH. L. REV. 2177, 2193-2215 (2000); Liza Perkins, Note, A Defense of Pure Universalism in Cross-Border Corporate Insolvencies, 32 N.Y.U. J. INT'L L. & POL. 787, 789-803 (2000); Jay L. Westbrook, Theory and Pragmatism in Global Insolvencies: Choice of Law and Choice of Forum, 65 AM. BANKR. L.J. 457, 464-66 (1991) [hereinafter Westbrook, Theory and Pragmatism]; Lynn M. LoPucki, Cooperation in International Bankruptcy: A Post-Universalist Approach, 84 CORNELL L. REV. 696, 704-08 (1999) [hereinafter LoPucki, Cooperation in International Bankruptcy].

(87.) OMAR, supra note 22, at 23.