Skip to main content

A-07-21 OFA-FINMA

Ord. FINMA sur la faillite des assurances

Articles en relation

Private insurance

Prior risk clause and the principle of continuous coverage in liability insurance

In its decision 4A_433/2025 of May 27, 2026, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal of a liability insurer that had refused to pay benefits under a policy structured according to the loss-occurrence principle. This mechanism links the claim to the time when the damage becomes apparent, rather than to the date of the underlying event. The insured, a manufacturer of aluminum composite panels used for facade cladding, had been covered by the appellant’s liability insurance for several years. The insurance[...]

Attachment DEBA / LC

The Federal Court refuses to relax the requirements

When a creditor seeks to have assets located in Switzerland that belong to a foreign state placed under sequestration under the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA), the creditor must, in particular, demonstrate that its claim has a sufficient connection to Swiss territory. In its decision 5A_617/2025 of January 29, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that this requirement applies even when (i) the creditor is itself a foreign state, (ii) it relies on a final release order (Art.[...]

Bankruptcy and Unauthorized Activity

Confirmation of the Right to Appeal by Dismissed Officers

In the decision 5A_988/2025 of March 3, 2026, which is scheduled for publication, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) ruled that the former officers of a company whose powers of representation have been revoked by FINMA retain standing to appeal the bankruptcy ruling on behalf of the company, even when the bankruptcy is declared by an ordinary court and not by FINMA itself. This extension of existing case law ensures effective access to justice (Art. 29a Cst.) in the context of[...]

DEBA Attachment

The client and her representative versus the bank and its choice of jurisdiction

In its ruling 5A_50/2025 of 12 December 2025, the Federal Court ruled that the Obergericht of the canton of Zug had acted arbitrarily in lifting an attachment based on a judgment of the High Court of Singapore (Art. 271 para. 1 no. 6 LP). The dispute concerns the indirect jurisdiction of the Singapore court, which is based on a choice of court clause (Art. 26(b) LDIP). Is the alleged debtor bound by this clause under the rules on representation? The[...]

Plus d'articles en relation