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:

A foreign bankruptcy or insolvency decree has no effects on the debtor’s Swiss assets and on court proceedings against the debtor in Switzerland and a foreign bankruptcy administrator must not act on Swiss soil unless the foreign decree is formally recognized by a Swiss court. Such recognition may be initiated by the foreign bankruptcy administration, any creditor or the debtor itself. This three-step guide describes how a foreign bankruptcy decree can be recognized in Switzerland.

Pre-packs, known as an effective restructuring measure from other jurisdictions, are also permissible in Switzerland.

What is a pre-pack?

A recent decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified the question whether a Swiss ancillary bankruptcy estate has standing to contest a schedule of claims of a bankrupt Swiss third-party debtor if the foreign bankruptcy estate filed the respective claims directly and regardless of the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy decree. In essence, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court denied the standing of the ancillary bankruptcy estate as it may in such cases not be considered a creditor of the respective claims.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt