Facts
[B. AG] (now in liquidation) and its former Chairman of the Board of Directors [A.] have filed a complaint against a ruling by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA. FINMA had determined that [B. AG] had engaged in commercial securities dealing (issuing house activities) and operated a collective investment scheme in the form of an investment company with fixed capital (SICAF) without the necessary authorizations. As a result, FINMA had placed [B. AG] into liquidation, opened bankruptcy proceedings, and prohibited [A.] from carrying out any activities requiring authorization.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court annuls the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court and remands the case to FINMA for further clarification of the facts and a new decision. Regarding the qualification as an issuing house, it is unclear whether the complainant acted together with the predecessor company [G. AG] as a group, which could establish a licensing requirement. Regarding the qualification as a collective investment scheme in the form of a SICAF, the lower court misinterpreted the legal framework by not considering the complainant's actual active involvement in the investment companies, but rather the lack…