Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

reads.

The consequences of a ruptured Casino-dream

going to The Casino turns out to be only seldom as a Jackpot. And who wants to build a Casino in trouble, years later, still legally in trouble. Two Swiss companies need to know now painful. Recently, the Nevada District Court has issued a judgment against the two companies. The equivalent of over 30 million Swiss francs requested funds of the US investment Bank Morgan Stanley of the company.

The case dates back a long time. With slot machines the Tivolino Holding made until the mid-1990s, in Switzerland, a fortune. Later, with the ban of the machine pivoted to the company and its founder Hans Jecklin on Casinos. In addition to Switzerland, the company also had foreign countries in mind: In Las Vegas, the Swiss built the Resort at Summerlin, which opened in the summer of 1990. It was a casino complex with Hotel and sports facilities. The project proved to be a Flop, around 100 million were placed in less than a year in the Sand.

Casino group sold

The U.S. Broke the beginning of the 2000s also had consequences in Switzerland. In order not to jeopardize the business and the name Swiss Casinos, sold Jecklin, the majority of the Swiss branch of his group to the Stäfner Hans-Ueli Rihs. Later, Rihs took over the entire stake – so is playing in the big game halls under the name of Swiss Casinos. With the US legal case, the current owners of Swiss Casinos have nothing to do.

The U.S. Department of justice, has attacked the two in Pfäffikon on lake Zurich-based company JPC Holding company (formerly known as Tivolino Holding known) and Swiss Leisure Group (former operator of the Swiss Casinos), but also Chairman of the Board, in Wollerau, resident Hans Jecklin.

company are not liable

The judge in the civil process in the Nevada District Court in your judgment, is this newspaper, to the conclusion that the two firms and Hans Jecklin can be made for the outstanding Millions of its former subsidiary company Seven Circle Gaming responsible. Is not responsible made additional defendants, including jecklin's wife. A limitation of the Case the court refused.

The Swiss is accused of the breach of the contract Move of the capital. Under these payments, a 10-million Transfer noted, went directly to the Bank account of the Jecklin. A part of this money he is said to have financed according to the judgment, the construction of a house in Switzerland. Jecklin's American defender stated that the money transfer was a private loan, later, they described the Transfer as a loan repayment from the Swiss Leisure Group to the UBS .

This Argument let US judge not apply. The reasons for the Transfer had not arisen from a misunderstanding, is it in the judgment. Rather, it was a conscious effort to justify the transaction in such a way that future financial obligations to creditors have been avoided. In addition to the actual claims of more than 30 million Swiss francs, the Swiss Leisure Group, the JPC Holding and Hans Jecklin costs, also the court and attorney costs.

Many lawyers involved

The legal costs are likely to be substantial, because the case is complex, lawyers are lining. Alone, the investment Bank Morgan Stanley, which lists more than a dozen lawyers who have worked in the USA with the case.

it is Questionable whether the judgment in Switzerland can at all be enforced. The enforcement would in this country be when a court is requested. "This would consider the judgment on its Fairness, and the compatibility of the Swiss legal order", says Andreas Kellerhals, an expert in international economic law at the University of Zurich.

Samuel Baumgartner, also a Professor at the University of Zurich, refers in General to the fact that the enforceability of the judgment is also, therefore, complex, because both the today defendant companies, as well as Hans Jecklin have your business and residence in Switzerland. Because in this country would also be examined, whether the court in Nevada from a Swiss point of view, was internationally responsible.

as Long as the judgment, as in the present case is not in the US legally, it can be in Switzerland anyway, not to be enforced. Whether the attorneys of Morgan Stanley in Switzerland to make representations to, is open. You had a request of this newspaper remain unanswered.

Hans Jecklin and his Swiss lawyers would not comment on the ruling of the Nevada District Court.

(editing Tamedia)

Created: 29.04.2019, 22:02 PM

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.