For a foreign decree to be recognisable in Switzerland, it is according to the Swiss International Private Law Act, required that the foreign bankruptcy decree is enforceable in the state where it was issued, and there must not be any grounds for refusing recognition, e.g. a violation of Swiss public policy. Furthermore, the decision must have been issued either in the state where the debtor has its seat or domicile or in the state where the debtor has its centre of main interests.
1.1 Are there international treaties and/or cross-border instruments applicable?
The restructuring Q&A provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key points of law and practice of restructuring in Switzerland.
1.1 What formal insolvency proceedings are available in Switzerland?
Pre-packs, known as an effective restructuring measure from other jurisdictions, are also permissible in Switzerland.
What is a pre-pack?
The Swiss Insurance Oversight Act has been subject to a partial revision in order to bring the protection of insurance customers in line with international developments and to improve the competitiveness of the Swiss insurance sector. The new provisions include a new insolvency restructuring regime, a customer categorisation making supervisory requirements proportional to the protection required by customers as well as new rules of conduct applicable to insurance undertakings and intermediaries.
On 19 June 2020, following the consultation, the Federal Council adopted the dispatch on the partial revision of the Swiss Federal Banking Act (Bundesgesetz über die Banken und Sparkassen, Bankengesetz). The legislative amendment intends to strengthen customer and depositor protection and promote system stability.
The partial revision focuses on three main areas: (i) the restructuring proceedings for banks, (ii) deposit insurances and (iii) intermediated securities.
Foreign bankruptcy and insolvency decrees generally remain without legal effect in Switzerland. A foreign bankruptcy or insolvency decree must first be recognized by the competent Swiss court. In a newly published decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court further clarified the recently revised provisions governing the recognition and the following procedure.
Introduction and background
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.