Depuis le 1er janvier 2025, de nouvelles dispositions du droit suisse des sociétés sont en vigueur, qui empêchent de manière ciblée les abus de faillite, interdisent le commerce d’enveloppes de sociétés surendettées (sociétés-écrans) et structurent plus clairement le droit de la révision. Avec l’introduction de l’article 684a CO et la révision de l’article 727a CO, le législateur fixe de nouvelles normes en matière de transparence et de protection des créanciers – et crée des règles claires pour les opting-outs et les transactions par enveloppe.
Since January 1, 2025, new provisions have been in force in Swiss company law that specifically prevent bankruptcy abuses, prevent trading in over-indebted shell companies and provide a clearer structure for auditing law. With the introduction of Art. 684a CO and the revision of Art. 727a CO, the legislator is setting new standards in terms of transparency and creditor protection – and creating clear rules for opting-outs and shell company transactions.
Seit dem 1. Januar 2025 gelten neue Bestimmungen im Schweizer Gesellschaftsrecht, die gezielt Konkursmissbräuche verhindern, den Handel mit überschuldeten Gesellschaftshüllen (Mantelgesellschaften) unterbinden und das Revisionsrecht klarer strukturieren. Mit der Einführung von Art. 684a OR und der Revision von Art. 727a OR setzt der Gesetzgeber neue Standards in Sachen Transparenz und Gläubigerschutz – und schafft klare Regeln für Opting-Outs und Manteltransaktionen.
С 1 января 2025 г. в швейцарском законодательстве о компаниях действуют новые положения, которые специально предотвращают злоупотребления при банкротстве, препятствуют торговле подставными компаниями с чрезмерной задолженностью и более четко структурируют аудиторское законодательство. Введя ст. 684a CO и пересмотрев ст. 727a CO, законодатель устанавливает новые стандарты прозрачности и защиты кредиторов, а также создает четкие правила для отказа от участия и сделок с подставными компаниями.
Key Takeaways:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in the case of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. vs. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd.1, held that entries in a company’s balance sheet acknowledging outstanding borrowings constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”), even if the creditor is not specifically named within the balance sheet.
Introduction
Voluntary liquidation is the mechanism available to solvent limited liability companies in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) where the shareholders decide to bring the company’s operations to an orderly end. Unlike compulsory liquidation, which is triggered by insolvency or court order, voluntary liquidation reflects a decision of the shareholders to dissolve the company while it remains able to discharge its obligations in full.
The Insolvency and Companies Court, in A Company -v- Visionary Future LLC & ors. (unreported), has dismissed an application by a company seeking to strike out, or alternatively restrain advertisement of, a winding-up petition brought by creditors. The judgment underlines the critical importance of providing proper and substantiated evidence in insolvency proceedings.
Lewis Silkin acted for the petitioners (the respondents in the application), who have since been successful in winding up the company in question.
Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.
The Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court has in Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGHC(A) 7 allowed Dr Goh’s appeal against a US$146 million award, holding that breach of the duty of care, skill and diligence (the "Care Duty") does not automatically establish loss.