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?
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.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
On 8 March 2019 the consultation on the partial revision of the banking act was initiated by the Federal Council. The amendments have an impact on bank restructurings, deposit insurance and intermediated securities. The consultation period will close on 14 June 2019.
Insolvency and restructuring measures
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.