94. If however ELSI was in astate of legal insolvency at 3 1 March 1968, and if, as contended by Italy, a state of insolvency entailed an obligation on the company to petition for its own bankruptcy, then the relevant rights of control and management would not have existed to be protected by the FCN Treaty. While not essential to the Chamber's conclusion, already stated in paragraph 92 above, an assessment of ELSI's solvency as a matter of Italian law is thus highly material. 95. Italy has argued that even before the requisition, ELSI was insolvent in the sense that its liabilities exceeded the value of its assets, and in support of this has pointed to, first, the "quick-sale value" calculated for the purposes of the liquidation plan, and secondly the observations of the auditors on the September 1967 balance sheet. The Chamber does not however consider that it has to conclude from this that ELSI was insolvent as early as 1967. The value of assets of this kind, until they are actually sold, must be a matter for assessment by informed opinion, and different views, and the use of different accounting conventions, may lead to different results. The company's management was clearly of the view that it could legally continue trading up to the end of March 1968, since its former Chairman has told the Chamber that the company's legal and financial advisers were keeping a close and.continuous watch on the position to ensure that Italian legal requirements were respected. But there is no doubt that ELSI was indeed in astate of insolvency when on 25 April1968 its Board of Directors voted to file a petition in bankruptcy. The conclusion then made that "The company's financial situation has worsened and has now reached a state of insolvency" was based, according to the minutes of the board meeting, on the fact that "There are payments on long-term loans that fell due a few days ago, and other payments which the company cannot make as a result of lack of liquidity . . ." In the bankruptcy petition, it was specified that "an instalment of Lit. 800,000,000 to Banca Nazionale del Lavoro became due on 18 April 1968 and the note therefor has been or will be protested, etc." In other words, the company had by then committed a default ("inadempimento'>by failing to meet its debts as they became due. 96. On this matter of insolvency in Italian law, consideration must also be given to the reasons employed by the Prefect of Palermo for his decision to annul the requisition order, and the findings of the Court of Palermo and the Court of Appeal of Palermo on the action brought by ELSI's trustee in bankruptcy, for damages following the decision of the Prefect annulling the requisition order. As indicated above (paragraph 75), the Prefect considered that the purpose of the requisition could not be achieved, since the company's activity could not be resumed. He explained that "10 stato dell'azienda era tale, per circostanze di carattere economicofunzionale e di mercato, da non consentire la prosecuzione dell'atti-