A-41-01

A recent Geneva ruling illustrates the effects of a residual bank agreement combined with a claims clause when the existence of a client instruction is disputed by the parties in a one-off investment advisory relationship (ruling ACJC/231/2024 of the Civil Division of the Geneva Court of Justice of 13 February 2024). In 2003, a company based in the British Virgin Islands opened a relationship with a Swiss bank. The bank's general terms and conditions provided to the client contained a[...]

According to a popular German expression, "Totgesagte leben länger. Despite their oft-heralded demise, retrocessions continue to enrich the civil case law of the Federal Supreme Court. However, practitioners are still waiting for the Federal Supreme Court to take a definitive stance on whether retrocessions in execution-only relationships should be subject to restitution. Unfortunately, these hopes were dashed in the ruling presented here (TF 4A_496/2023 of 27 February 2024): "Damit braucht auf die umstrittene Frage, ob grundsätzlich auch im Execution only-Verhältnis[...]

The Zurich Handelsgericht validates a margin call with a short delay of just over 24 hours in ruling HG200220-O of October 27, 2022, published on November 1, 2023. In this case, the CEO of a company based in Scotland, a qualified "professional" investor, and his ex-wife open a banking relationship with a bank in Zurich. They are both linked to the bank by a high-risk investment advisory relationship. As part of the banking relationship, the bank grants them a Lombard[...]

The issues surrounding the return of retrocessions can be simplified into two questions: (i) must a retrocession be returned to the client? If so, (ii) how much information must the client be given in order to validly waive this return? In its ruling HG210223-O of June 21, 2023 (now in force), the Zurich Handelsgericht confirms its case law to the effect that a bank bound by an execution-only relationship with its customer is obliged to make restitution. The court also[...]