ARTICLE
2 July 2024

Retrocessions And Execution-Only – Validity Of A Waiver

SW
Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd

Contributor

We are a leading Swiss business law firm with offices in Zurich, Geneva and Singapore, and take care of all our clients’ needs – transactions, advisory, disputes around the world. At Schellenberg Wittmer, we strive to meet your needs by providing commercially focused, dedicated legal advice of the highest quality.
In a new decision 4A 574/2023, 4A 576/2023, dated 24 May 2024 and published on 26 June 2024, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirms and specifies the validity of a waiver clause...
Switzerland Wealth Management
Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd are most popular:
  • within Energy and Natural Resources and Environment topic(s)

In a new decision 4A 574/2023, 4A 576/2023, dated 24 May 2024 and published on 26 June 2024, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirms and specifies the validity of a waiver clause in relation with execution-only mandates as well as investment advisory agreements.

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has previously ruled that, in the context of asset management agreements, a waiver is only valid if the amount of retrocessions in relation to the assets under management is disclosed.

Recently, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled that a waiver indicating the amount of retrocessions in reference to an applicable percentage per class of assets (without reference to the assets under management) was "not insufficient" in case of execution-only mandates (4A_496/2023, dated 27 February 2024).

Now, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has taken a further step and ruled that the principles developed in the context of asset management agreements are not directly applicable to relationships where clients themselves order the transactions (i.e. execution-only and advisory).

This confirms that, in the case of execution-only mandates as well as investment advisory agreements, a waiver disclosing the applicable percentage of retrocessions per class of assets is valid. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, in the absence of a management agreement, the "assets under management" obviously cannot be a criterion.

This new decision comes as a confirmation of the reasoning contained in several decisions rendered by some chambers of the Geneva First Instance Court (see our comments in a previous publication: Insights | Schellenberg Wittmer (swlegal.com)).

Unfortunately, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to rule on whether an obligation of restitution exists in the context of execution-only mandates, considering that, in the case at hand, the parties did not discuss the principle of restitution.

To be continued...

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More