The source does not provide a standalone analysis of statutory limitation periods. This source-limited note explains which time-related elements Abegglen actually addresses: retroactive waivers, layered disclosure and periodised bandwidth disclosure.
This note is deliberately source-limited: Abegglen does not provide a standalone or systematic analysis of statutory limitation periods for retrocession claims. Accordingly, the focus is on the time-related aspects that are actually addressed in the contribution and how they fit into the broader doctrine. [Abegglen pp. 9–11]
Abegglen does not discuss the ordinary limitation periods applicable under mandate law, nor issues such as commencement or interruption of prescription in the context of retrocession claims. No such analysis can be derived from the source. [Abegglen pp. 9–11] This absence is itself noteworthy, as it shows that recent Federal Supreme Court discussion has centred on disclosure, waiver and conflict-of-interest prevention rather than on temporal bars to enforcement. [Abegglen p. 11]
Abegglen notes that in 2024 the Federal Supreme Court впервые accepted an expressly retroactive retrocession waiver (“future and past Trailer Fees”). [Abegglen p. 11] From a doctrinal perspective, this means that retrocessions already accrued are not necessarily subject to surrender if a valid retroactive waiver exists. [Abegglen p. 11]
Abegglen emphasises that the information required for an informed waiver must be available before the mandate is concluded. [Abegglen p. 10] The disclosure is not transaction- or fund-specific, but layered through categories and bandwidths, addressing future mandate periods. [Abegglen p. 10]
The industry-standard disclosure accepted by the Federal Supreme Court relies, as described by Abegglen, on periodised (typically annualised) percentage bandwidths linked to an appropriate calculation base (e.g. investment volume). [Abegglen pp. 9–10] This periodisation structures the temporal perception of retrocessions without making any statement on statutory prescription. [Abegglen p. 10]
Abegglen highlights that the Federal Supreme Court acknowledged that clients may request more detailed information “at any time”. [Abegglen p. 11] This gives the time element indirect relevance: clients who refrain from making inquiries over an extended period may face good-faith arguments if they later challenge the validity of a waiver. [Abegglen p. 11]
The time-related elements addressed by Abegglen relate to disclosure architecture, consent and conflict-prevention over time, not to classical prescription doctrine. Limitation periods therefore remain outside the scope of the source and must be analysed separately if required. [Abegglen pp. 9–11]
Abegglen pp. 9–10
Abegglen p. 11
This publication is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice. It is not an offer, solicitation or recommendation. It is directed solely at qualified investors in Switzerland and is not intended for U.S. persons.
Receive selected analysis on Swiss litigation finance and regulatory developments.
Processed in accordance with our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
In this series
Further reading you may find relevant.
Despite extensive clarification, key issues remain unresolved. This post discusses the execution-only question, cantonal divergence, the doctrinal debate between conflict-prevention and “non-enrichment” theories.
A practical playbook: governing retrocessions as incentive risk, segmenting relationship types, implementing court-accepted disclosure, documenting waivers and repapering, and operationalising client inquiries.
What makes a retrocession waiver effective under current case law? We distil Abegglen’s summary of required disclosure elements, the meaning of ‘Eckwerte’, the acceptance of bandwidth-based disclosure, and practical implications for AGB and repapering.
Regulatory notice
This material is for information purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or solicitation. It is directed exclusively at qualified investors and is not intended for US persons.
