Facts
The renounced estate of P. was declared bankrupt, and its liquidation by way of summary proceedings was decided on 17 June 1985. A claim against [L.] for the restitution of the share capital of the company O. Inc., in Panama, and 200 shares of the company O. S.A., in Geneva, was entered in the inventory at the request of the company G. The administration offered the creditors the assignment of this claim, which the company [G.] requested on 13 October 1986. The company O. Inc. filed a complaint against this offer of assignment, arguing that it was premature. On 7 January 1987, the cantonal supervisory authority rejected this complaint.
On 17 February 1987, the company O. Inc. requested the ordinary liquidation of the bankruptcy and the suspension of any assignment until the second creditors' meeting. On 9 March 1987, the administration refused to postpone the assignment and formally assigned the claim to the company [G.] on 10 March 1987.
The company O. Inc. then filed a complaint against this assignment, concluding that the bankruptcy should be liquidated in the ordinary form and that no valid assignment of the rights of the estate against [L.] had taken place.
Considerations
The Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Chamber of the Federal Tribunal examined the validity of the assignment made under Art. 260 DEBA. It recalled that the case law considers this assignment to be a sui generis institution of debt enforcement and procedural law, which resembles the assignment under Arts. 164 et seq. CO and the mandate under Arts. 394 et seq. CO. The creditor is authorized by the assignment to assert the disputed right in its own name and at its own risk and expense, with a…