1. See Report from the Commission on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, COM(2012) 743 final, and the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC)No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, COM(2012) 744 final. For a critical overview of the proposals, see H. Eidenmüller, ‘A New Framework for Business Restructuring in Europe: The EU Commission’s Proposals for a Reform of the European Insolvency Regulation and Beyond’, 20 Maastricht Journal (2013) p. 133.
2. See W. Kennett, ‘Private International Law: The Brussels 1 Regulation’, 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) (2001) p. 725: ‘The basic framework of the Regulation remains similar to that of the Convention, although there are numerous changes on points of detail and some on matters of substance.’ It is also clear from the 19th recital in the preamble to Regulation 44/2001 that continuity of interpretation should be ensured between the Brussels Convention and the Regulation—Case C-167/08 Draka NK Cables Ltd v. Omnipol Ltd [2009] ECR I-3477.
3. In the scheme established by Regulation 44/2001, Art. 1(2)(b) has the same position and performs the same role as point 2 of the second subparagraph of Art. 1 of the Brussels Convention. Moreover, the wording of those two provisions is identical—Case C-111/08 SCT Industri AB (In Liquidation) v. Alpenblume AB [2009] I.L.Pr. 43, at para. 23.
4. See generally, G. Moss, I. Fletcher and S. Isaacs, The EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings, 2nd edn. (OUP 2009) ch. 1.
5. Regulation No 1346/2000.