The Banking Act currently regulates only the main features of the restructuring procedure for banks, while more detailed provisions are given in the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority Banking Insolvency Ordinance. To strengthen legal certainty, the Federal Council has initiated a consultation on a partial revision of the Banking Act, meaning that the rights of bank owners and creditors will now be regulated on the legislative level.
The Federal Council recently released a comprehensive report on the inclusion of blockchain technology within the Swiss legal framework – in particular, the Swiss banking regulations. With this comprehensive report, the Swiss government has confirmed its established approach of applying Switzerland's existing and principle-based laws in a technology-neutral way. However, it also acknowledges that the existing legal framework will require punctual amendments to solve specific issues.
From 1 January 2019 companies that operate beyond the core activities characteristic for banks will be able to accept public funds of up to Sfr100 million on a professional basis subject to simplified requirements. During its recent meeting, the Federal Council set into force an amendment to the Banking Act to promote innovation in the fintech area and to remove barriers to market entry for fintech firms.
The Swiss Bankers Association recently published new guidelines for its member banks, including recommendations on how to treat and onboard blockchain companies for ordinary corporate bank accounts. As Switzerland has strict laws and due diligence requirements in place governing financial transactions, banks must carry out careful checks when opening an account, particularly for companies with links to blockchain and initial coin offerings.
Swiss authorities are building a financial regulatory regime which considers the most important recommendations from the Financial Action Task Force's mutual evaluation report on Switzerland. To this end, the Federal Council has initiated a consultation on amendments to the Anti-money Laundering Act and the Swiss Banking Association has published its revised agreement on Swiss banks' code of conduct regarding the exercise of due diligence.
The European Parliament and the European Council recently expanded the scope of the EU anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism regulations to cover cryptocurrencies and virtual currencies. While the directive will not apply directly to Switzerland, Swiss financial regulators remain ahead of the curve. Since 2016, the Financial Market Supervisory Authority has widened the scope of certain banking regulations relating to money transmitting and remitting services to cover virtual currencies.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) recently published a supervisory notification on token sales and initial coin offerings (ICOs). It also announced that it was examining whether several ICOs or their corresponding business models violate supervisory provisions. A FINMA press release cited the marked increase in ICOs carried out in Switzerland in recent months as a reason for its action.
The revised Banking Ordinance of April 30 2014 regarding new financial technology (fintech) regulations recently entered into force. The purpose of the proposed revisions is to enhance the competitiveness of Switzerland as a major fintech hub and to create an appropriate regulatory framework for fintech companies providing services outside traditional banking business by taking into account the specific risk-profile of their business models and service offering.
The Federal Council recently adopted an amendment to the Banking Ordinance scheduled to enter into force on August 1 2017. Following the announcement of the revised rules, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority published a guidance note regarding the new rules on public deposits. The revision will reduce some of the barriers to market entry for financial technology firms.
The Federal Council recently announced its intention to strengthen the existing deposit protection scheme through a series of different measures. The council also intends to strengthen the regulations on the protection of securities and other assets deposited by clients with a bank or securities dealer by introducing a new obligation to keep those assets segregated from other clients' assets on a sub-custodian level, to the extent that the chain of custody is in Switzerland.
The Federal Council recently initiated a consultation procedure on new financial technology (fintech) regulations. The revised provisions ensure that barriers to market entry for fintech firms are reduced and that Switzerland's competitiveness as a financial centre is maintained. The consultation will end on May 8 2017. The proposed amendments to the Banking Act and the Banking Ordinance aim to ease the regulatory framework for innovative fintech companies, while taking into account potential risks.
When the Financial Market Infrastructure Act and the Financial Market Infrastructure Ordinance came into effect, specific transitional periods were granted to fulfil new duties, as well extended record-keeping duties for banks as participants on trading venues regarding securities transactions. As organised facilities that are not subject to authorisation may be operated only by banks, securities dealers, stock exchanges or multilateral trading venues, these changes will affect banks significantly.
According to the Banking Act, several financial technology business models carry out some sort of banking business where a full banking licence would be too expensive and would not reflect the business model properly. As a result, the Financial Market Supervisory Authority supports a new licensing category for financial innovators carrying out some banking activities, but with limited acceptance of client assets and no lending activity.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) recently published a position paper regarding the resolution of global systemically important banks. The paper explains FINMA's emergency strategy for the global systemically important banks in Switzerland and outlines ways in which salvage or break-up can be implemented operationally in cooperation with foreign supervisory and resolution authorities.
Swiss law has implemented a privately operated deposit protection system based on preferential treatment, accelerated pay-outs and a guarantee by the deposit protection scheme. The law does not provide a state guarantee for the deposit protection system. However, participating members must hold sufficient liquid assets to cover half of their maximum contribution obligations and the minimum level of liquidity prescribed by law.
Sale and purchase transactions with respect to privately held companies in Switzerland are usually structured as share or asset deals or, in certain cases, bulk transfers or mergers. This article provides an overview of the approvals and authorisations that might be required with respect to a share deal in Switzerland. In particular, it focuses on the laws regulating foreign investments in Switzerland and summarises their key characteristics.
The Takeover Board recently assessed whether adopting an opting-out clause which will apply only to two specific investors and only for a period of five years is permissible from a takeover law perspective. In its decision, the Takeover Board confirmed its case law on selective opting-out clauses. However, there is still considerable legal uncertainty in this area.
Public takeover offers are regarded as competing offers if, at the time of their publication, another offer in relation to the target has already been launched. To guarantee freedom of choice of the recipients of the offers, and to avoid the sequence of offers influencing the shareholders' decision, the law sets forth specific rules for competing offers. In the recent LifeWatch case, the Takeover Board took its position on issues relating to multiple offerors.
Switzerland recently decided to facilitate the financing activities of groups operating in or out of Switzerland by easing some restrictions under the Withholding Tax Ordinance. The amendment of the ordinance is meant to strengthen the establishment of headquarter activities with further central corporate functions, as well as treasury activities, particularly those performed outside Switzerland.
In a recent case regarding the takeover of Actelion by Johnson & Johnson, the Takeover Board expanded its case law on the permissibility of conditions in public takeover offers. In this case, the Takeover Board had to assess whether the implementation of a demerger of a business division from the target constituted a permissible condition within a public offer.
The completion of larger M&A transactions is usually conditional on the absence of material adverse changes (MAC). This can be achieved by including either a MAC clause or a condition that all warranties must be true at completion in combination with a warranty confirming the absence of a MAC. A MAC clause defines what is deemed to be a MAC of the target company and entitles the acquirer to step back from the proposed transaction in case a MAC event has occurred or is alleged to have occurred.
In a recent Takeover Board case, the offeror filed a request with the board for approval that it should – before the distribution of the special dividend – have the right to acquire shares outside the offer without triggering the best-price rule. In its decision, the board stressed the importance of the offer price as a reference for the best-price rule and held that any acquisition of shares for a consideration above the offer price would violate the rule.
The Takeover Board has reviewed the methods of valuing different share categories of a target and the monetary value of additional covenants and obligations entered into by a shareholder. The decision is relevant for the interpretation of similar provisions under the Merger Act, requiring equal treatment of shareholders in the context of a merger, demerger or conversion.
Swiss M&A transactions involving public companies are mainly governed by the Financial Market Infrastructure Act, which replaced the former Federal Act on Stock Exchanges and Securities Trading. This regulates both friendly and hostile public takeovers for Swiss resident companies with at least one class of equity security listed on a Swiss exchange, and for foreign resident companies whose shares are mainly listed on a Swiss exchange.
On January 1 2016 revised regulations for the disclosure of significant shareholdings in listed companies and amendments to takeover regulations took effect. The new regulatory framework regulates key market infrastructures and incorporates many former provisions of the Stock Exchange Act, including those on public takeovers and those relating to the disclosure of significant interests in listed companies.
In the context of a friendly public offer, the bidder will usually seek to enter into a transaction agreement with the target. Such a transaction agreement customarily includes provisions regarding the continuance of the contractual relationship between the target and its management, as well as the (dis)continuance of certain target board members' mandates as per the settlement of the public offer.
The Federal Council recently enacted the Financial Market Infrastructure Act. While the act requires the formal alignment of the Takeover Ordinance with the provisions relating to takeovers, the amended ordinance brings substantive changes. By implementing these changes, the Takeover Board acknowledges that electronic publication has become the standard procedure for disseminating important financial information.
An amendment of the Ordinance of the Takeover Board on Public Takeover Offers has entered into force, abolishing the requirement that announcements and notices relating to a public offer be physically published in newspapers. Consequently, the Takeover Board has issued guidance on the newly applicable rules for the publication of the offer documents.
Two recent Takeover Board decisions have determined the validity of an opt-out clause in the Sika takeover. The board had to ascertain the validity of an opt-out clause in Sika's articles of association and determine whether the opt-out clause applied in the contested acquisition by Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA.
In March 2013 the Swiss voting population approved the fiercely debated 'Rip-off Initiative', originally launched in 2008 by Thomas Minder. Its incorporation into national law is now ongoing. It remains to be seen how this will affect public M&A transactions involving Swiss corporations with publicly listed shares. The consequences are extensive and company boards should carefully consider the implications.
Amendments to the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act and the Code of Obligations recently entered into force, increasing the attractiveness of acquisitions of distressed businesses and facilitating restructurings. The revised law makes composition proceedings more attractive for both the company and a potential acquirer. For a company in distress, the new law makes it easier to overcome legal hurdles.
The Takeover Board recently modified Circular 1 regarding buy-back programmes. The revised circular brings, in particular, some changes to the reporting and publication procedure. It is therefore important that all existing buy-back programmes take the revised circular into account.
The Takeover Board's practice regarding the evaluation of the validity of an opt-out clause has recently undergone several changes. Transparency requirements must now be met not only at the shareholders' meeting itself, but also with regard to the information provided in the invitation to the meeting, so that the shareholders can understand the reason for, and the effects of, the opt-out clause.
In November 2010 the Federal Administrative Court handed down a decision in a public takeover matter as a result of an amendment in the regulatory framework governing public takeovers. The court rejected part of the Takeover Board's previous decisions. As a result, the board had to reassess numerous issues, and recently handed down its decision regarding the adequacy of the share price offered to the public shareholders.
The Takeover Board previously expanded its practice with regard to the evaluation of the validity of opt-out clauses. In two recent cases, the board had to decide whether opt-out clauses introduced after listing were valid. The board also took this opportunity to reflect on its own practice. These decisions show that board practice is still variable and can be expected to undergo further changes and/or clarifications.
The Swiss legislature has recently passed an amendment to the rules of the Stock Exchange Act. The new rules will, among other things, abolish the possibility for an offerer to pay a control premium to the controlling shareholders of a target company shortly before the launch of a public tender offer.
A new majority shareholder must take minority shareholders' interests into account. An offeror has two legal options to exclude or 'squeeze out' minority shareholders under the Stock Exchanges and Securities Trading Act and the Merger Act. The Supreme Court recently clarified certain questions relating to a squeeze-out merger following a successful public takeover bid, which was challenged under the Merger Act.
It appears that the Takeover Board will no longer review opt-out clauses in instances where the shareholders have been fully informed and made aware of the consequences and implications of the introduction of such clauses. This is rather astonishing, especially since in the last reform of the Securities and Stock Exchange Act, the legislature intended to substantially strengthen the position of minority shareholders.
In the first case in which it has acted as the court of final instance in relation to a public takeover, the Federal Administrative Court recently oversaw a case regarding a high-profile public takeover. In light of the case, offerors would be well advised to use the most simple transaction structures possible in future public takeovers in order to avoid the increasingly costly and time-consuming processes involved with legal challenges from shareholders.
In 2009 the Swiss legislature enacted the Financial Market Supervision Act and made several changes to the Act on Stock Exchanges and Securities Trading relating to public offers. In view of these changes in the legislation, FINMA and the Takeover Board undertook a general overhaul of the FINMA Stock Exchange Ordinance and the Ordinance on Public Takeovers. This update analyses the impact of these changes.
In 2009 the rules governing the disclosure obligations relating to interests in listed companies' voting securities were substantially revised. In addition, the authorities in charge of supervising compliance with these obligations have investigated a number of potential violations of the rules. These investigations have attracted media attention and have become the subject of intensive discussion among legal experts.
The Federal Act on Stock Exchanges and Securities Trading and its associated ordinances have been revised. The new takeover regulations reflect the existing practice of the Takeover Board, but also include several amendments to the rules governing public tender offers. This update summarizes the general rules to be considered by a bidder when determining an offer price and the new rules on exchange offers.
The principal methods of buying a Swiss company are to buy its assets or shares, or to merge the target with the acquirer or with a newly formed subsidiary of the acquirer. Choosing the appropriate legal structure for the acquisition is the starting point of each transaction and will have a major impact on the risks of the acquirer to assume undisclosed liabilities.
The Federal Council recently agreed to push back the effective date for derivative transaction reporting duties for small non-financial counterparties to 1 January 2024 and extend the corresponding transitional period. The corresponding amendment to the Financial Market Infrastructure Ordinance will enter into force on 1 January 2019. The reporting duties already in force for other market participants are unaffected.
Except for some regulated entities, market participants are in general free to assume unlimited counterparty risk at their discretion, whether under over-the-counter derivative transactions or otherwise. Collateralisation is a useful means of significantly reducing counterparty risk, although it cannot fully eliminate any remaining credit risks relating to the counterparty.