To date, the Swiss courts have not had the opportunity to consider whether a liquidator is required to take into account an agreement providing for relative subordination in favour of certain creditors. As long as the Bundesgericht has not delivered a judgment on this subject, the applicability of a subordination agreement, often used in financing transactions, is uncertain in Swiss insolvency proceedings. In addition, the question of whether the subordinated creditor has the right to declare the subordinated claim in the insolvency proceedings on behalf of the subordinated creditor is controversial. Some authors oppose this view and argue that the priority creditor is entitled to compensation against the subordinated creditor only if the subordinate creditor fails to file its claim. For all these reasons, transactions with Swiss companies should consider alternative mechanisms to relative subordination. Finally, the bankruptcy court was not convinced by Junior Lender`s argument that it should be permissible to examine whether Senior Lender Argon fraudulently induced to enter into the secured credit facility and the associated subordination agreement by promising a line of credit of $US 75 million which Senior Lender never wished to provide. According to the Tribunal, the law of Delaware (which governed) does not allow the non-application of an agreement negotiated between demanding commercial actors when a party claims that there has been fraud. Although a subordination agreement may, in certain circumstances, be abrogated as a remedy under Delaware law, the Junior Lender did not request a resignation in this case. Consequently, the subordination agreement would be applied in the event of Argon`s bankruptcy until a court decides otherwise in similar proceedings. In such a procedure, the court wrote, the Junior Lender could be entitled to the discovery of the Senior Lender „according to the usual civil rules”. The court also rejected the Junior Lender`s argument that the discovery determination had in some way altered or cancelled the standby clause. In the Tribunal`s view, there was no clear indication that, in concluding the discovery provision, senior Lender agreed: (i) to amend or supplement the subsequent agreement; or (ii) has deliberately waived its rights under the sub-written agreement, which generally benefits many parties in the interest, and not just the Junior Lender… .