Subordination Agreement Swiss Law

The crucial question, therefore, is whether or not an application can be considered a future requirement. Repayment claims are not considered to be future claims, but as claims that arrive in the future. Although the interest rate interest analysis is less clear, there is still a very strong case that interest claims can be transferred in a bankruptcy manner and that the legal advice presented was acceptable to investors and rating agencies. Given the uncertainty in the analysis of leasing rates, securitization transactions involving securitizations of leasing assets are generally the transfer of the entire lease agreement, so that any lease would be generated directly with the buyer. The question is whether a judicial administrator should also consider a subordination agreement that automatically benefits only certain creditors (relative subordination). Some authors and liquidators argue that a relatively secondary debt should be admitted into the debt plan as a normal debt and dividends paid to the subordinated creditor. However, according to the prevailing opinion, relative subordination should be imposed by the liquidator as well as the subordination of Article 725 II CO. In this case, the dividend paid to the subordinated creditor would not be distributed to the subordinated creditor, but directly to the priority creditor (in addition to the priority creditor`s own dividend) until the principal debt is fully paid. After the principal creditor`s payment, the balance of the subordinated creditor`s dividend would be paid to the subordinate`s own debt. The agreement on the sale and transfer of a debt must be written and bear the signature of the seller/beneficiary of the assignment; However, it is common practice for the contract to purchase debts to be signed by both parties. Yes, under Swiss law, a seller may consent to the continuous sale of receivables in an enforceable manner. Since these are mainly renewable transactions in Switzerland, this technique is widely used. While such an agreement would generally survive the seller`s insolvency, it is likely that claims that arise on the seller after the opening of the bankruptcy will no longer be transferred to the buyer (see also question 4.11).

Under Swiss law, there are no specific restrictions, but the parties generally agree on the authorized use of the revenue in the corresponding agreements. Yes, the transfer of receivables on receivables with such restrictions is not possible without the debtor`s consent. Depending on the specific transaction structure, a single consent concept may also work. It could even be argued that a limitation on the “transfer of an agreement” is not intended to limit the “assignment of a debt”. Interpretation must be done on a case-by-case basis and is also fairly objective. However, such an analysis would be rather vague and not acceptable to investors or rating agencies. If the debtor is able to account for his claim against the seller with the buyer`s claim on the basis of the mechanics described above, the seller is generally responsible to the buyer under the contract to purchase the debt and must pay the amount corresponding to either forfeiture or damage. If the debtor is prevented from compensating his debt against the debt, neither the seller nor the buyer is liable to the debtor, but the debtor can still withdraw and assert the debt he holds against the seller. The missing element is relevant when intercompany loans are subject to the obligation to guarantee, in a second separate financing transaction, the absence of an inter-credit agreement between subordinated intragroup companies and priority lenders in the second financing transaction.