<h3>As from September 15, 2024, the New Framework will Facilitate the Disclosure of Personal Data from Switzerland to the U.S.</h3>
<h3>What Is New?</h3>
<p>By way of its decision of August 14, 2024, the Swiss Federal Council has recognized that the Swiss-U.S. DPF provides for an adequate level of data protection when private companies or public authorities in Switzerland disclose personal data to U.S. companies that participate in the Swiss-U.S. DPF. <a href="https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2022/568/en#annex_1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Annex 1</a> of the Swiss Federal Ordinance on Data Protection will be updated to include such disclosures under the Swiss-U.S. DPF as guaranteeing an adequate level of data protection.</p>
<p>Switzerland thus follows the approach taken earlier by the EU with the adoption of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (<strong>EU-U.S. DPF</strong>) (see our <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/en/insights/are-data-transfers-to-the-united-states-safe-again" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bulletin of July 11, 2023</a>). The new Swiss-U.S. DPF substantially corresponds to the EU-U.S. DPF, which marked the (preliminary) end of a period of uncertainty for disclosures of personal data to the U.S. after the «Schrems II» landmark decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (<strong>CJEU</strong>) struck down the predecessor of the EU-U.S. DPF (see our <a href="https://homburger.ch/de/insights/eugh-urteil-im-fall-schrems-ii" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bulletin of July 16, 2020</a>).</p>
<p>Most importantly, the Swiss-U.S. DPF provides for the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>The U.S. aligns its legal system with fundamental principles of Swiss law by way of the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/14/2022-22531/enhancing-safeguards-for-united-states-signals-intelligence-activities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Executive Order 14086</a> executed by President Biden on October 7, 2022 (<strong>EO 14086</strong>). The changes include a limitation of U.S. intelligence activities to what is proportionate, oversight of U.S. intelligence services, and effective redress. Earlier this year on June 13, 2024, the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opcl/executive-order-14086" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Attorney General has designated Switzerland as a qualifying state</a> for purposes of implementing the redress mechanism.</li>
<li>U.S. companies may self-certify that they adhere to a defined set of privacy principles. Certified U.S. companies must ensure in particular the rights for data subjects as known from the DPA and redress options, including a free of charge independent dispute resolution mechanism and an arbitration panel. Compliance with these principles is monitored by the U.S. Department of Commerce (<strong>DoC</strong>) and enforced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.</li>
</ul>
<h3>When Will the Swiss-U.S. DPF Enter Into Force?</h3>
<p>The new Swiss-U.S. DPF will be effective from September 15, 2024.</p>
<h3>What Are the Consequences of the New Swiss-U.S. DPF?</h3>
<p>The Swiss-U.S. DPF will facilitate disclosures of personal data from Switzerland to the U.S.: Once effective, Swiss data exporters will be able to disclose personal data to recipients in the U.S. who participate in the Swiss-U.S. DPF without having to enter into SCC and performing a data transfer impact assessment.</p>
<p>Even for companies continuing to rely on SCC, the new Swiss-U.S. DPF will facilitate their data disclosure to the U.S. and the data transfer impact assessment, given that the limitations imposed by the U.S. EO 14086 apply irrespective of whether personal data is disclosed under the Swiss-U.S. DPF or based on a different transfer instrument, such as the SCC.</p>
<h3>Is There a List of U.S. Companies Participating in the Swiss-U.S. DPF?</h3>
<p>The DoC maintains and publishes a list of U.S. companies that have self-certified and declared to comply with the Swiss-U.S. DPF (<strong>DPF List</strong>, accessible <a href="https://www.dataprivacyframework.gov/list" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>). There are exceptions as to which U.S. companies are eligible to participate in the Swiss-U.S. DPF, but Swiss data exporters can rely on the fact that companies on the list published by the DoC are certified.</p>
<h3>Is There Still a Need to Execute a Data Transfer Agreement Under the Swiss-U.S. DPF?</h3>
<p>Even when disclosing personal data under the Swiss-U.S. DPF, it is typically advisable for data exporters to enter into a suitable data transfer agreement with the data importer. This agreement should include the following, in addition to any other terms governing the relevant data disclosure in the specific circumstances:</p>
<ul>
<li>Obligation to comply with the principles of the Swiss-U.S. DPF;</li>
<li>Obligation to remain duly certified under the Swiss-U.S. DPF;</li>
<li>Obligation to notify data exporter immediately of a removal of the DPF List and the reason for such removal;</li>
<li>Mechanism to tackle the consequences of a removal from the DPF List.</li>
</ul>
<h3>What to Do with Existing SCC or Binding Corporate Rules?</h3>
<p>In principle, SCC or binding corporate rules that were concluded earlier are no longer necessary for data disclosures to a U.S. data importer who participates in the Swiss-U.S. DPF. Companies should however carefully consider whether to fully migrate their disclosures of personal data to the U.S. to the Swiss-U.S. DPF as there may be valid reasons to continue relying on the SCC or binding corporate rules:</p>
<ul>
<li>If the U.S. data importer is removed from the DPF List, the data disclosure is no longer considered to be covered by an adequate level of protection. Existing SCC or binding corporate rules could still serve as a fallback to ensure adequate protection; and</li>
<li>The validity of the EU-U.S. DPF is already being challenged through lawsuits in the EU, as its predecessors were. Should the CJEU ultimately decide to invalidate the EU-U.S. DPF, this will in all likelihood also impact the Swiss-U.S. DPF and companies relying exclusively on the Swiss-U.S. DPF may be left unprotected. Thus, maintaining existing SCC or binding corporate rules may serve as a protection should the Swiss-U.S. DPF be invalidated at some point.</li>
</ul>
<h3>What Are the Consequences of a Removal from the DPF List?</h3>
<p>U.S. companies may fall off the DPF List of participating companies if:</p>
<ul>
<li>They voluntarily withdraw from the Swiss-U.S. DPF;</li>
<li>They fail to complete their annual re-certification; or</li>
<li>They persistently fail to comply with the principles.</li>
</ul>
<p>For data disclosures that occurred <em>prior</em> to the removal of the U.S. company from the DPF List, the Swiss data exporter may argue that these disclosures were made lawfully under the adequacy decision.</p>
<p>For data disclosures that occurred <em>after</em> the removal of the U.S. company from the DPF List, the Swiss Federal Council’s adequacy decision does not apply. Instead, the parties must guarantee an adequate level of data protection by other means recognized by the law, including SCC or binding corporate rules. If no such guarantees can be put in place, the U.S. data importer should return or delete the personal data.</p>
<h3>Is the Swiss-U.S. DPF a Permanent Solution for Swiss-U.S. Data Disclosures?</h3>
<p>In principle, the Swiss-U.S. DPF is intended to be a permanent solution. However, it marks the third attempt of Swiss and U.S. authorities to facilitate transatlantic disclosure of personal data, after the CJEU struck down first the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework, and then the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (with the so-called «Schrems II» decision, see our <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/en/insights/cjeu-decision-schrems-ii-new-hurdles-data-transfers-usa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bulletin of July 16, 2020</a>), which in each case also ended the corresponding arrangements between Switzerland and the U.S. Given that the EU-U.S. DPF is already being challenged through lawsuits in the EU, time will tell whether the EU-U.S. DPF and the Swiss-U.S. DPF will withstand the judicial review.</p>
<p>In addition, the U.S. legislation may change. The Swiss Federal Council will constantly monitor the relevant U.S. decisions and review the adequacy decision on a regular basis. The first review will take place one year from now. If the Swiss-U.S. DPF malfunctions, the adequacy decision will be adjusted or withdrawn.</p>


RZ_Preview_Lock_SB_01

New Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework

<p>On March 13, 2024, the European Parliament adopted the Artificial Intelligence Act, a far-reaching, 400-plus-page piece of legislation that seeks to establish a uniform legal framework for the development of AI.</p>
<p>The Act reaches beyond the EU&#8217;s borders, regulating AI providers and users regardless of location provided that the AI «output» is used in the EU. Although Switzerland has taken a <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/insights/swiss-federal-council-launches-ai-regulatory-regime-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wait-and-see approach</a> to regulating AI, its position in Europe means that most Swiss AI will be subject to EU regulation and Switzerland may be compelled, whether de facto or de jure, to adopt equivalent regulations.</p>
<p>The Act largely takes a risk-based approach to regulating AI. Closely tracking the draft leaked in January (discussed <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/insights/leaked-draft-of-eu-ai-act-sheds-light-on-proposed-regulation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>), it bans certain practices that threaten fundamental rights, such as social scoring and the exploitation of age or disability, and subjects «high-risk AI», such as biometric identification, credit scoring, and employee evaluations, to data governance, human oversight, impact assessments, and other restrictions.</p>
<p>The Act departs from the risk-based approach in two key respects:</p>
<ul>
<li>First, it imposes basic transparency requirements on nearly all individual users of AI. These measures seek to ensure that AI-generated content is labeled, including deepfakes, and users know when they are interacting with AI.</li>
<li>Second, the Act singles out for specific regulation «general-purpose AI models» and «general-purpose AI systems». These measures, which were added following the generative AI explosion in 2023, depart from the Act&#8217;s technology-agnostic risk-based approach and may prove complicated to interpret and enforce as the technology evolves.</li>
</ul>
<p>The penalties for violations are potentially substantial. Member states will establish their own rules, but the Commission&#8217;s «AI Office» is empowered to fine prohibited AI practices up to EUR 35 million or, if the offender is a company, up to 7 percent of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.</p>
<p>Restrictions on «unacceptable» uses come into force later this year. The «general-purpose AI system» regulations in early 2025. The transparency requirements and the regulation of «high-risk» systems become effective in 2026.</p>
<p>The EU&#8217;s efforts to regulate the risks of AI are laudable. The EU is trying to set early boundaries for an emerging technology that may have a profound social and economic impact. The Act sets important guardrails, but it contains only limited provisions to support the AI tech sector in Europe. Time will tell if the regulations stifle innovation and progress and weaken Europe&#8217;s competitive position vis-à-vis the United States and China, contributing to Europe falling further behind. To avoid these pitfalls, the new law will need constant re-evaluation to determine whether new developments require new approaches and safeguards.</p>


EU Adopts AI Act 

<h3>A. Introduction</h3>
<p>The Swiss Federal Supreme Court&#8217;s January 19, 2024 decision, which was published on February 12, 2024, concerns an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations against an employee. In that context, the Court assessed whether the internal investigation, which confirmed a reasonable suspicion of sexual harassment and ultimately led to the employee&#8217;s dismissal, had been conducted properly.</p>
<p>The key rulings from the Court&#8217;s decision are:</p>
<ol>
<li>When private employers perform internal investigations, the standard criminal procedural guarantees do not apply;</li>
<li>Employers do not need to provide an employee subject to investigation with advance notice of an interview or an opportunity to prepare. Rather, it suffices if the employer informs the accused employee at the beginning of the interview of its purpose and content;</li>
<li>The absence of a «person of trust» at the interview does not constitute a serious deficiency in the investigation process that would render the employee&#8217;s termination abusive, even if an employer&#8217;s internal regulations entitle employees to be accompanied by a «person of trust» at such interviews;</li>
<li>Employers are not required to inform the accused employee in detail of the allegations against him or her. Generic and anonymized information about the allegations is sufficient;</li>
<li>A reasonable suspicion, confirmed by an internal investigation, is sufficient basis to ordinarily terminate an employee lawfully even if the suspicion is later proven to be unfounded. Before terminating an employee, the employer is not required to prove the truth of the allegations.</li>
</ol>
<p>The Court&#8217;s ruling rejects the views previously expressed by some legal scholars that employers must provide employees subject to investigation the procedural guarantees accorded to the accused person in criminal investigations.</p>
<h3>B. Summary of Facts and Procedural History</h3>
<p>As noted above, the case concerned an internal investigation regarding allegations of sexual harassment at a bank. Employee A contacted the bank&#8217;s ombudswoman for conduct and ethics and reported sexual harassment by Employee B. The bank conducted an internal investigation to clarify the sexual harassment allegations. As part of the investigation, several employees, including Employee B, were interviewed. The internal investigation concluded that there was sufficient basis for a reasonable suspicion that Employee B had sexually harassed Employee A. As a result, the bank terminated Employee B by observing the applicable notice period.</p>
<p>Employee B then brought a claim for unfair dismissal and damages. The Zurich Labor Court rejected the claim. It held that it was irrelevant whether the allegations of sexual harassment were true or not. Rather, the only relevant factor was whether the bank had sufficiently investigated the allegations. The Labor Court found that it had.</p>
<p>Employee B appealed to the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, which concluded that the bank had not afforded Employee B an adequate opportunity to defend himself against the allegations. In particular, it focused on the lack of detail provided by the bank regarding the allegations, which, according to the High Court, prevented Employee B from adequately defending himself and, in particular, from providing exculpatory facts and evidences. The High Court therefore held that the termination was abusive.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a></p>
<p>Thereafter the bank appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court&#8217;s decision.</p>
<h3>C. Findings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court</h3>
<h4>1. No equivalent procedural guarantees as in criminal investigations</h4>
<p>The Court&#8217;s decision clarifies uncertainty respecting the law applicable to internal investigations in private companies. In a case from May 2016,<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> the Court quoted legal scholars who expressed the view that in internal investigations, employers had to provide accused employees with procedural guarantees equivalent to those of a criminal proceedings (i.e., a right to prepare for the defense, be represented by a lawyer, and request the taking of evidence).<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> As a result, following the Court&#8217;s May 2016 decision, it was unclear what procedural guarantees, if any, were required in internal investigations. In its recent decision, the Court clarified that its 2016 ruling merely reproduced the views expressed by some legal scholars but did not endorse them.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a></p>
<p>The Court further explained that, unlike in a criminal proceedings, in which an accused person is subject to the state&#8217;s criminal power and may face criminal liability (including imprisonment and fines), employees and employers voluntarily enter into an employment relationship and the worst threat an employee can face is termination.</p>
<p>According to the Court, the bank&#8217;s internal investigation provided adequate protections for Employee B because the bank interviewed several employees, reviewed Employee B&#8217;s electronic communications, and provided Employee B an opportunity to comment on the minutes of his interview.</p>
<h4>2. No obligation to announce the purpose and the content of the interview in advance</h4>
<p>The Court held that, unlike in criminal proceedings, employers are not required to inform employees in advance of the purpose and content of an internal investigation interview. Rather, it is sufficient if the employee is informed at the beginning of the interview of its purpose and content. There is no legal requirement to provide the employee with an opportunity to prepare for the interview.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a></p>
<h4>3. No right to be accompanied by a «person of trust»</h4>
<p>The Court held that the absence of a «person of trust» at the interview does not constitute a serious deficiency in the investigation process that would render the employee&#8217;s termination abusive, even if an employer&#8217;s internal regulations entitle employees to be accompanied by a «person of trust» at such interviews.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a></p>
<h4>4. Right to have the allegations clarified</h4>
<p>The Court confirmed that the internal investigation of a private employer is not comparable to a state criminal investigation and that therefore the employer is not required to inform the employee in detail of the allegations against him or her. Rather, generic and anonymized information about the allegations is sufficient. The Court also explained that accuser&#8217;s identity must be kept confidential and may not be disclosed to the accused employee.</p>
<h4>5. Ordinary termination due to reasonable suspicion is not abusive</h4>
<p>The Court&#8217;s ruling reminded that Swiss employment law is governed by the principle of freedom of termination. This means that there are no particular reasons required for an ordinary termination of the employment relationship.</p>
<p>Accordingly, unlike in criminal proceedings, in which there can be no conviction unless the alleged crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, an employee may be terminated based on mere suspicions, even if the suspicions later turn out to be unfounded.</p>
<p>Employers still have an obligation to establish that their suspicions are reasonable before terminating their employees. Termination may be abusive if based on mere allegations absent an adequate investigation to ascertain the trustworthiness of the allegations, or if the investigation fails to establish a reasonable suspicion that the allegations are indeed true.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a></p>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>        OGer ZH LA210022 of May 23, 2023.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>        BGer 4A_694/2015 of May 4, 2016, E. 2.4.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a>        BGer 4A_694/2015 of May 4, 2016, E. 2.4.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.1.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.4.1.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.4.2.</h6>
<h6><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a>        BGer 4A_368/2023 of January 19, 2024, E. 4.2.</h6>


Hpmburger Bulletin

No Criminal Procedural Guarantees in Internal Investigations

Gesellschaftsrecht / M&A

IP / IT

Datenschutz

Prozesse

Regulierung

Homburger News

Homburger and Apollo Global Management

<p>Homburger advises high-growth, global alternative asset manager Apollo Global Management, Inc. (Apollo; NYSE: APO) on the acquisition of The Travel Corporation (TTC), a leading international travel group. TTC, which has been privately owned and operated for more than a century, is a global portfolio of 18 market leading travel brands, including Trafalgar, a leading escorted tour operator, Uniworld Boutique River Cruises, a luxury all-inclusive river cruise line, Contiki, youth travel specialist tour company, premium guided vacation company Insight Vacations, as well as other global travel brands and supporting business entities.</p>
<p>The Homburger team is led by Daniel Hasler and includes Marco Rostetter, Nicola Togni, Léonard Aeschlimann, Isabelle Cordey and Luc Huber (all Corporate / M&amp;A), Gabriel Kasper (Data Protection and IP / IT) and Manuel Adassery (Regulatory and Litigation).</p>


Homburger advises Apollo Global Management, Inc. on the acquisition of The Travel Corporation

Kapitalmarkt

Steuern

Finanzierungen und Anlageprodukte

Arbeitsrecht und Vergütung für Führungskräfte

Wettbewerb

<p>Am 16. Mai 2024 wurde Homburger bei den LMG Life Sciences EMEA Awards mit dem «Impact Deal of the Year»-Award für die Beratung von VectivBio bei deren öffentlicher Übernahme durch Ironwood ausgezeichnet. Das Homburger Team wurde von Andreas Müller und Margrit Marti geleitet und umfasste Experten aus den Teams für Gesellschaftsrecht / M&amp;A, Kapitalmarkt, Steuern, Finanzierungen und Anlageprodukte, IP / IT, Datenschutz, Arbeitsrecht und Vergütung für Führungskräfte sowie Wettbewerb und Regulierung.</p>
<p>Mit der Auszeichnung werden komplexe und einflussreiche Transaktionen in der Life-Science-Branche gewürdigt.</p>


Homburger mit dem LMG Life Sciences EMEA Award für den «Impact Deal of the Year» geehrt

Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

Compliance

Untersuchungen

Finanzmarktrecht

Healthcare / Life Sciences

Legal 500_webnews

The Legal 500 hat Homburger in 12 Kategorien als Tier 1-Kanzlei ausgezeichnet und wählt 7 Anwälte für die Hall of Fame aus

Homburger_SocialMedia_Template_001

<p>The Legal 500 hat Homburger in den folgenden Kategorien als Tier 1-Kanzlei ausgezeichnet: Banking and Finance; Capital Markets; Commercial, Corporate and M&amp;A; Competition; Data Privacy and Data Protection; Dispute Resolution: Arbitration; Dispute Resolution: Litigation; Employment; Healthcare and Life Sciences; Intellectual Property; Regulatory, Compliance and Investigations und Tax.</p>
<p>Sechs Partner and ein Senior Counsel wurden mit der «Hall of Fame» geehrt: <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/daniel-daeniker" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daniel Daeniker</a>: Commercial, Corporate, M&amp;A; <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/marcel-dietrich" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Marcel Dietrich</a>: Competition, <a href="https://homburger.ch/de/team/balz-gross" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Balz Gross</a>: Dispute Resolution – Arbitration; <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/felix-dasser" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Felix Dasser</a>: Dispute Resolution – Litigation; <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/georg-rauber" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Georg Rauber</a>: Intellectual Property; <a href="https://homburger.ch/de/team/flavio-romerio" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flavio Romerio</a>: Regulatory, Compliance and Investigations; and <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/rene-bosch" target="_blank" rel="noopener">René Bösch</a>: Banking &amp; Finance – Zurich und Capital Markets. In die «Hall of Fame» werden Anwälte aufgenommen, welche konstant gutes Feedback von Klienten erhalten und mindestens acht Jahre hintereinander in den The Legal 500 Rankings an erster Stelle standen.</p>
<p>The Legal 500 als Teil von Legalease, einem Anbieter von Informationen zum Rechtsmarkt, analysiert Anwaltskanzleien in der ganzen Welt und veröffentlicht jährliche Rankings basierend auf einer umfangreichen Recherche.</p>


<ul>
<li>Führung von datenschutzrechtlichen Verfahren vor Gerichten und Behörden</li>
<li>Beratung und Vertretung in Streitigkeiten betreffend datenschutzrechtlicher Ansprüche, wie beispielsweise Auskunftsrecht, Bearbeitungsverbote und Übermittlungen ins Ausland</li>
<li>Durchsetzung und Abwehr von persönlichkeitsrechtlichen Ansprüchen, insbesondere auch im Zusammenhang mit Medienberichten</li>
<li>Vertretung von Unternehmen in behördlichen und aufsichtsrechtlichen Verfahren, beispielsweise bei Datenschutzverletzungen</li>
</ul>


Prozess- und Verfahrensführung im Bereich Datenschutz und Persönlichkeitsrecht

<ul>
<li>Entwicklung und Umsetzung von Strategien und innovativen Lösungen, um den Datenschutz in Unternehmen sowohl unter dem Schweizer Datenschutzrecht als auch der europäischen Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) sicherzustellen</li>
<li>Beratung in Bezug auf die datenschutzkonforme Nutzung neuer Technologie und die Umsetzung von Digitalisierungsprojekten</li>
<li>Ausarbeitung und Strukturierung der zur Gewährleistung des Datenschutzes notwendigen Dokumentation, wie beispielsweise Datenschutzerklärungen, Reglemente und Verträge</li>
<li>Beratung im Zusammenhang mit internationalen und gruppeninternen Datenübermittlungen und Ausarbeitung der erforderlichen Dokumentation</li>
<li>Unterstützung bei der unternehmensinternen Aufarbeitung von Datenschutzverletzungen und anderen datenschutzrechtlich relevanten Vorkommnissen</li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>


Datenschutz

Prozess- und Verfahrensführung im Bereich Datenschutz und Persönlichkeitsrecht

Beratung im Datenschutzrecht

Hauptkontakte

New Swiss-U.S. Data Privacy Framework

EU Adopts AI Act

No Criminal Procedural Guarantees in Internal Investigations

Homburger advises Apollo Global Management, Inc. on the acquisition of The Travel Corporation

Homburger mit dem LMG Life Sciences EMEA Award für den «Impact Deal of the Year» geehrt

The Legal 500 hat Homburger in 12 Kategorien als Tier 1-Kanzlei ausgezeichnet und wählt 7 Anwälte für die Hall of Fame aus

Alternative Funds 2024: Switzerland

Fintech 2025: Switzerland

Datenschutzstrafrecht