One year into the arbitration proceedings, Claimant, a US company, informed the arbitral tribunal that Respondent, a Dutch company, had apparently become subject to insolvency proceedings in the Netherlands and provided it with the name and details of the liquidator. The arbitral tribunal asked Respondent to confirm this allegation and that commencement of insolvency proceedings would not stay an ongoing arbitration. The arbitral tribunal invited the liquidator to contact it for any information he might require about the ongoing proceedings. Neither Respondent nor its liquidator commented on the continuation of the proceedings, while Claimant, referring to Article 30 of the Dutch bankruptcy law, submitted that arbitration proceedings, like judicial proceedings, are not suspended due to bankruptcy, provided they are almost at an end. The arbitral tribunal addressed the question of its jurisdiction as follows.

'174. As noted above, the parties expressly confirmed the jurisdiction of the Sole Arbitrator in the Terms of Reference. Therefore, at least until the opening of the insolvency proceedings, there is no jurisdictional issue.

175. According to [Claimant], when such proceedings were opened on May 26, 2004, the arbitral proceedings were virtually at an end and therefore Article 30 of the Dutch bankruptcy law permits the proceedings to continue.

176. Neither [Respondent] nor [its liquidator] has objected either to that interpretation or to the continuation of the proceedings.

177. On May 26, 2004, the sole procedural steps that remained to be taken were the hearing of the oral witnesses and the rendering of the award. At that time, the Sole Arbitrator had reviewed all pleadings and submissions and all witness statements and other evidence.

178. In fact, originally, the oral hearings were scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004. However, they were postponed by the Sole Arbitrator after he received notification that [Respondent]'s lawyer had resigned and was unable to confirm that [Respondent]'s representatives would attend the April 26 and 27 hearings. Therefore, not only were the proceedings nearing completion, but they would have been completed if it had not been for [Respondent]'s actions in failing to attend the initial hearing when it must have been aware of its financial difficulties.

179. Therefore, the Sole Arbitrator concludes that he has jurisdiction to continue these proceedings and render an award.

180. With respect to the procedure the Sole Arbitrator therefore finds that [Respondent] was given an opportunity to present its case. [Respondent] provided written submissions in accordance with the procedural timetable and was provided with an opportunity to participate in the oral hearing alone or represented by a lawyer.'