D-01-19

A bank that guarantees its client a 5% return on their investments must bear the consequences. In judgments 4A_361/2024 and 4A_363/2024 of 18 June 2025, the bank learned this the hard way and was ordered to pay more than USD 31 million. In June 2010, a bank met with two brothers from a wealthy Qatari family with a view to establishing a business relationship. After several discussions, the parties entered into a credit agreement in which the bank undertook to[...]

The Federal Supreme Court has upheld a ruling by the Geneva Court of Appeal dismissing a liability claim against a bank for mismanagement on the grounds that the allegations were insufficient (ruling 4A_276/2024 of 31 March 2025). The client had held a bank account with the bank in question since the 1960s. In 1995, she inherited EUR 3 million and entered into a management agreement with the bank. At that time, the client's portfolio consisted solely of bonds and cash.[...]

There is debate about the extent to which the client's knowledge and experience should be gathered as part of the suitability test. The solution proposed by Art. 12 para. 2 FinSA is probably not satisfactory for the investment advisory service. For the management service, the interpretation of this provision proposed by FINMA in its Circular 2025/2 on the rules of conduct according to FinSA and FinSO has been fairly criticized and, according to some, deviates from the will of Parliament.[...]

The Geneva Court of Justice, in its ruling ACJC/1653/2024 of 19 December 2024, ruled that a clause waiving retrocessions indicating percentage ranges of the ‘volume invested on an annual basis’ by product category is valid within the framework of a management mandate. The Court of Justice begins its reasoning by recalling the principle that the agent must not be impoverished or enriched by the mandate apart from his agreed fees. Referring to the judgment 4A_266/2010 (commented in Fischer, cdbf.ch/773), it[...]