Alors que la procédure d'arbitrage était engagée depuis un an, la demanderesse, une société américaine, a fait savoir au tribunal arbitral que la défenderesse, une société néerlandaise, avait apparemment été mise en liquidation judiciaire aux Pays-Bas et lui a fourni le nom et les coordonnées du liquidateur. Le tribunal arbitral a demandé à la défenderesse de confirmer cette information et de certifier que l'ouverture de la procédure de faillite ne suspendait pas l'arbitrage en cours. Il a également invité le liquidateur à le contacter pour tout renseignement dont il aurait besoin à propos de cet arbitrage. Ni la défenderesse ni le liquidateur n'ont fait de commentaires sur la poursuite de la procédure, et la demanderesse a de son côté fait valoir, en référence à l'article 30 de la loi néerlandaise sur les faillites, que la faillite n'avait pas pour effet de suspendre une procédure d'arbitrage, à l'instar d'une procédure judiciaire, à condition qu'elle soit presque terminée. Le tribunal arbitral s'est prononcé dans les termes suivants sur la question de sa compétence.

'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.'