Between relaxation and excitement: activities and benefits gained in retirees' tourism

While most studies that focused on older adults' tourism behaviour have used quantitative methods, most studies that focused on benefits that older adults gain from tourism have used qualitative methods. Thus, the associations between seniors' tourism behaviour and its results, namely, the benefits gained, were never explored. This study aimed to examine these associations. The study was based on a national mail survey of 298 Israeli retirees, who travelled abroad at least once in the year prior to the survey. Results indicated that there are nine factors of destination activities and five factors of benefits gained, which are intricately interrelated. In addition, four differentiated sub‐segments were identified based on their destination activities, but the differences between them in terms of benefits gained were rather minor. These findings suggest a balance mechanism in older adults' tourism that leads to maximization of benefits in different activities and/or circumstances. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Analyzing the Impact of Culture on Average Time Spent on Social Networking Sites

The study examines the influence of national culture on national averages of time spent (ATS) visiting the largest social networking sites (SNSs): Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The analysis uses cultural dimensions adopted from both the works of Hofstede and Schwartz, while controlling for country e-readiness and median population age. The findings suggest that culture's influence may be moderated by the media richness and type of network focus of each SNS. Overall, in rich-media SNSs, egalitarianism positively impacts ATS. Individualism and masculinity only impact ATS on friendship-oriented SNSs. Additionally, uncertainty avoidance and intellectual autonomy only impact ATS on professional-oriented SNSs.     

Company duplication – plain fraud or a ‘poor man's’ bankruptcy? A case study in the financial distress of small businesses

Two possible solutions to corporate financial distress are traditionally considered: commencing a formal bankruptcy proceeding or arranging an out‐of‐court capital restructuring. Corporate bankruptcy scholarship has largely ignored a third solution occasionally undertaken by small businesses, that is, resorting to self‐help measures. The purpose of this paper is to start filling the gap using a unique case study. The paper describes and analyses an existing phenomenon among small firms in Israel experiencing financial distress – company duplication. A typical scenario unfolds as follows. An entrepreneur who controls the financially distressed Company A registers a new Company B in an attempt to avoid a complete shutdown of her creditors' disturbed business. The assets of Company A are transferred to Company B in what appears to be fraudulent conveyance. Company B serves as a vehicle through which the original business is kept running. If necessary, the entrepreneur will also register Company C and repeat the process. Israeli law regulates company duplication in an ambivalent manner. On the one hand, conventional wisdom considers company duplication to be tantamount to fraud against Company A's unaware creditors. Accordingly, company duplication has been recently denounced by the Israeli Supreme Court as an illegitimate way of conducting business. The Court held that notwithstanding the principle of limited liability, an entrepreneur resorting to company duplication is personally liable to pay any debt of Company A that was not serviced by it. On the other hand, company duplicators do not face criminal charges. To the extent that company duplication is practiced by insolvent entrepreneurs, deterrence is therefore suboptimal, as insolvent duplicators are not sanctioned at all. Against this backdrop, this paper advances two normative arguments. First, a more sympathetic explanation should be considered to account for company duplication. An entrepreneur resorting to company duplication might actually be arranging for a ‘home‐made’ bankruptcy proceeding (i.e. buying time which could help the business establish its viability and regenerate). According to this narrative, the duplication mimics the role of a formal bankruptcy stay on unsecured creditors' collection efforts, thus suggesting that company duplication serves as ‘a poor man's’ bankruptcy proceeding. Second, this new explanation of company duplication, combined with the current level of suboptimal deterrence, mandates a re‐evaluation of this business pattern to assess its relative efficacy. I argue that at least in the Israeli context because of its special features, company duplication should be tolerated with regard to small businesses, assuming that the entrepreneur is not defrauding creditors or attempting to rescue a business that has failed due to economic rather than merely financial factors. To that end, company duplicators should be held personally liable to debts of the duplicated companies and be pursued with criminal sanctions only selectively, as explained in the paper. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Small Business Financial Distress and the “Phoenix Syndrome”—A Re‐evaluation

In a typical “phoenix syndrome” scenario, a small business entrepreneur who controls the financially distressed Company A registers Company B, to which the assets of Company A are transferred in what appears to be fraudulent conveyance. Company B serves as a vehicle through which the business is kept running, without the pressures of the business creditors. If necessary, the entrepreneur will also register Company C and repeat the process. The law usually considers the execution of a “phoenix syndrome” scheme (“phoenixizing”) to be fraud against Company A's unaware creditors. Two major problems undermine, however, the efficient regulation of “phoenix syndrome” schemes. First, although criminal sanctions are available, “phoenixizing” entrepreneurs are not regularly prosecuted and are usually only subject to monetary sanctions (e.g., personal civil liability to creditors). Because defrauders tend to be judgment proof, the result is sub‐optimal deterrence. Second, lawmakers have not considered a more sympathetic explanation to account for the “phoenix syndrome” phenomenon: an entrepreneur resorting to a “phoenix syndrome” scheme might actually be arranging for a last‐resort “home‐made” bankruptcy proceeding, that is, the entrepreneur might be mimicking the role of a formal bankruptcy stay on unsecured creditors' collection efforts, against the background of a cost prohibitive formal bankruptcy proceeding. Put simply, the “phoenix syndrome” scheme is, occasionally, “a poor man's” bankruptcy proceeding. Deterring a “phoenixizing” entrepreneur attempting to rescue a viable business is, of course, unwarranted, as the result is viable businesses being lost. These two problems of under‐deterrence and over‐deterrence mandate a re‐evaluation of the manner in which “phoenix syndrome” schemes are regulated. Obviously, the main question concerns implementation: How can “good” entrepreneurs, attempting to rescue a viable business, be separated from “bad” ones, who attempt to defraud or to rescue a non‐viable business? The paper discusses and evaluates several solutions. Copyright © 2012 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.