Facts
The plaintiff, a 54-year-old nurse, inherited a fortune in 1999 and commissioned defendant 1 as asset manager. Defendant 2, a lawyer, was active as an advisor to the testator and assisted the plaintiff in managing the assets. The plaintiff and defendant 1 concluded an asset management contract that provided for an investment strategy of 100% in stocks. The plaintiff received CHF 390,000.-- from the assets and the defendants received fees of CHF 75,948.-- and CHF 18,169.--. When the plaintiff dissolved the asset management contract, the final deposit value was CHF 1,086,006.--, which corresponded to a difference of CHF 1,058,681.-- to the initial deposit value.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had breached their duty of care by not conducting a risk analysis and not informing her about the risks of the investment strategy. The court of first instance found that the defendants had breached their duty of care and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages of CHF 639,892.--.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the court of first instance had correctly assessed the breaches of duty of care by the defendants. It found that the defendants had breached their duty to create a customer profile and that the plaintiff had not been informed about the risks of the investment strategy. The court found that the court of first instance had correctly calculated the damages and that the defendants were liable to pay the plaintiff damages of CHF 639,892.--.
The Federal Court also rejected the defendants' objection that the court of first instance had breached its duty to provide…