Retrocessions And Execution-Only – Validity Of A Waiver

SW
Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd

Contributor

Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd
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
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

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.

See More Popular Content From

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