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.
If bankruptcy proceedings are commenced against a debtor or if a debtor enters into a court-approved composition agreement with an assignment of all of its assets, transactions executed by the debtor during the last five years are subject to scrutiny.
The purpose of claw back claims is to recover assets extracted from or given away by an insolvent debtor for the benefit of its insolvency estate and ultimately its creditors. Transactions may be subject to claw back actions if:
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?
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
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.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: