Joined: 10-Apr-2003 Posts: 1161
From: Norrköping, Sweden
@AMiGR
Heh... You didn't bother to read much into the context of my post, now did you? I didn't mean to define insolvency as different from bancruptcy to argue that it would have any relevance for this court case at all. It was about the business practice of selling off assets as a means to get out of insolvency, nothing more.
Now, as for the insolvency/bancruptcy clause and what it could possibly mean, I believe only a court of law would be able to determine wether a company actually is in a state of insolvency or not. That means not even Bill McEwens oral testimony would suffice. I mean, he's no auditor after all, now is he?
Last edited by samface on 17-Jun-2007 at 11:48 PM.