According to a new Federal Supreme Court decision, securing an advantageous place of jurisdiction in Switzerland (so-called 'forum running') in an international dispute is of sufficient interest for an action seeking a negative declaratory judgment. This new precedent enables parties domiciled in Switzerland to anticipate foreign proceedings initiated by a counterparty by filing an action for a negative declaratory judgment to drag the case before a court in Switzerland.
The Federal Supreme Court recently ruled on at which point the statute of limitation starts to run and what its duration should be. It found that the statute of limitation applicable to the claim for restitution was 10 years and that it started to run on the receipt of each payment by the agent. The issue of statutory interest remained undecided, but now appears much less controversial
The Federal Supreme Court recently clarified that the criminal liability of enterprises is not a strict liability, but rather requires proof of a criminal offence in each case. The decision defines the limits of criminal law applicable to enterprises, particularly in respect of money laundering, and clarifies that the genuine or cumulative criminal liability of enterprises is not a strict liability for organisational deficiencies.
The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that fines and other penalties of a criminal nature are not tax deductible for legal entities, as they are not deemed to be business-related expenses. Tax deductibility is granted only insofar as penalties aim at disgorging illegally obtained profits. For income tax purposes, it is essential to distinguish fines of a penal nature from those which aim to disgorge illegally obtained profits. However, the court provided no specific guidance on how to distinguish one from the other.
In a recent case, Land Rover terminated a service contract with an authorised garage. The garage filed for preliminary relief with the Zurich Commercial Court, requesting that the court oblige Land Rover to continue the service contract after termination. The court rejected the request, concluding that Land Rover did not have a dominant position at the after-sale level.