Employment in Financial Services

Members of management should at all times be of good repute and possess sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to perform their duties (article 91, Directive 2013/36/EU; and article 9, Directive 2014/65/EU).

Anyone in an executive position (i.e. members of the legal administrative body, the effective management and independent controllers) at a financial institution must exclusively be natural persons and must at all times have the necessary professional standing and expertise to perform their duties (article 19, Act of 25 April 2014). Since 2023, it is specified that “in particular, these persons must demonstrate honesty, integrity and independence of mind which, in the case of members of the legal administrative body, enable them to effectively evaluate and, if necessary, question the decisions of the actual management and to ensure the effective supervision and monitoring of the management decisions taken” (Art. 19, Act of 25 April 2014).

In addition, they must not have been convicted of any of the offences listed in article 20 of the Act of 25 April 2014. This concerns convictions with a professional ban and violations of financial legislation, company codes and insurance law.

The NBB will verify that these persons meet the conditions listed above. Forms for a new appointment, additional elements during the employment, termination of an appointment or renewal of an appointment are available on the NBB website (www.nbb.be). These forms require information mainly regarding education, past financial services experience, training, any criminal or administrative or civil proceedings or investigations, disciplinary decisions, bankruptcy, insolvency, potential conflicts of interest, and time commitments for the new appointment.

The NBB will assess the ability of the person based on five criteria:

• expertise, covering knowledge, experience and skills;
• professional repute;
• independence of mind;
• time commitment; and
• collective suitability for the board (ie, to verify whether the expertise within the said body is sufficiently guaranteed, given the person’s knowledge, experience and skills (NBB Fit & Proper Handbook of 22 December 2022, 2:26, p. 16)).

Concerning "N-1" effective managers (managers who exercise direct and decisive influence over the management of the institution, but who are not members of the management committee) other than branch managers, the supervisory authority does not have to authorise them (NBB Fit & Proper Handbook of 22 December 2022, 2:9, p. 14). This does not mean that these persons must not have the required expertise and professional reputation, but only that the NBB will not conduct an assessment.

Different notification procedures exist before employees may take up their roles.

Investment firms may only entrust employees to provide investment advice if they are knowledgeable and have demonstrated the required reliability – as evidenced, inter alia, by not having a relevant and unspent prior criminal record. Furthermore, such employees’ identities must be disclosed to BaFin before they commence their activities. The active registration of employees is intended to impart upon employers the significance of employee selection and responsibility for their decisions.

Representatives of regulated entities of the financial services sector (typically, members of management) must be approved by BaFin before they can take up their role (colloquially known as BaFin’s “driver’s licence”). To obtain approval, a request must be filed with BaFin, showing the experience and suitability of the candidate for the role. Depending on the financial services delivered by the company, information that must be filed include the following:

• a CV (including information on professional training, career, and references);
• information on reliability (a form or summary to be completed by the manager, including, for example, mandatory declarations on prior criminal or administrative offences);
• a "certificate of good conduct for submission to an authority", a "European certificate of good conduct for submission to an authority", or "corresponding documents" from abroad (depending on the countries of residence in the last 10 years);
• an extract from the central commercial register;
• an overview of other mandates as a managing director or in administrative and supervisory bodies; and
• information about the manager’s ability to dedicate sufficient time to the role.

Non-management employees responsible for specific key functions at an insurance provider are subject to a similar notification process. Further, financial services employers must perform a risk analysis under the Anti-Money Laundering Act and take internal security measures, which also includes assessing the reliability of employees.

Pre-screening measures are only required if the FI employee is going to be involved in the provision of financial services (or other MAS-regulated activities).

Such employees need to pass a fit-and-proper assessment, referring to the MAS Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria. Criteria to be considered include the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation; competence and capability; and financial soundness.

In considering the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation, relevant factors include whether the employee has been the subject of proceedings or investigations (whether criminal or disciplinary) or has been dismissed or asked to resign. MAS’ Circular CMI 01/2011 also sets out MAS’ expectations on due diligence checks, declarations and documentation concerning employees who are expected to be representatives of specific FIs. Among other things, this entails conducting reference checks with the previous employers of the FI’s proposed employees.

In December 2023, MAS issued its response to a May 2021 consultation paper which sought to address issues arising from the recycling of “bad apples” through FIs. In doing so, the MAS noted it will proceed with its proposal to impose mandatory requirements to conduct and respond to reference checks. The anticipated reference check regime will apply to specific groups of employees, with the information to be addressed in reference checks standarised. The MAS will look to consult on the relevant draft notices in this respect in due course, and this will bear watching.

For more senior roles (eg, senior managers, material risk personnel, directors, committee members, chairpersons and key executives), FIs are expected to ensure that they are fit and proper for their roles. MAS’ prior approval may also have to be obtained or notices may have to be made, depending on the licence, registration and role sought. FIs in these sectors are expected to conduct more rigorous checks before seeking MAS’ approval or submitting a notice, with a greater emphasis on considering circumstances that may give rise to a conflict of interest.

Regarding anyone in an executive position (i.e. members of the legal administrative body, the effective management and independent controllers) at a financial institution, it is necessary to use the forms provided by the NBB to ensure that they are “fit and proper” and are authorised by the NBB (see question 2).

It is also recommended to foresee restrictive covenants in the employment contract, such as confidentiality, other professional activities, non-solicitation, non-competition and intellectual property provisions.

German law does not treat financial services employees differently from employees of other industries, in that an employment agreement does not necessarily have to be in writing to come into existence. It is, however, common (best) practice and highly recommended for risk mitigation and transparency reasons that parties enter into a written employment agreement. For some provisions to be valid, such as a post-contractual non-compete or a fixed-term agreement, a qualified electronic or wet-ink signature is mandatory.

Further, employers must also provide employees with a wet-ink signed certification document summarising the essential conditions of employment under the German Evidence Act. Failure to provide such a document does not render the employment contract invalid, but a breach of the documentation requirement constitutes an administrative offence that may trigger fines. The German government has proposed an Act to modify the wet-ink signature requirement and also allow for electronic signatures, but has not provided a clear timeline for it coming into force yet.

Remuneration is typically governed under the employment contract and references a firm’s remuneration policy, which must be put in place for regular staff as well as identified risk-takers, with a dedicated set of rules varying per industry sub-sector.

Finally, depending on the case, certain documentation may need to be filed with BaFin before an employee can take up their tasks (see question 2).

Reference checks, declarations and other documentation to ensure that the employee is a fit and proper person should be requested. In addition, notices to MAS or MAS’ approval may be required for more senior roles (see question 2).

There should also be an employment contract in place, addressing matters such as individual licences (where required) and continued compliance with all applicable MAS guidelines, notices, advisories and regulations. In drafting these contracts, FIs should take into account MAS’ Guidelines and Advisories, including the Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria, Individual Accountability and Conduct, and (where relevant) Risk Management Practices – Board and Senior Management. Robust confidentiality obligations and other restrictive covenants are also commonplace.

Anyone in an executive position (i.e. members of the legal administrative body, the effective management and independent controllers) at a financial institution must, at all times, have the necessary professional standing and expertise to perform their duties.

This will be assessed by the NBB through standard forms to complete if there is a new appointment, new elements during employment, termination of appointment or renewal of appointment.

"N-1" effective managers must meet the same criteria, but authorisation by the NBB is not necessary (see question 2).

Taking on certain tasks requires prior proof of competence, which varies depending on the financial services sector and the role. As an example, investment services must notify BaFin of investment advisors, sales representatives, and compliance officers, who in each case must be knowledgeable and reliable, and whose expertise must be reviewed at least annually (section 87, WpHG and the corresponding Employee Notification Ordinance). Institutions must deliver proof of professional suitability (ie, sufficient theoretical and practical knowledge of the relevant business and management experience) and reliability for certain key employees, managing directors, and members of the supervisory or administrative board (sections 25c paragraph 1 and 25d paragraph 1 KWG, sections 20 and 21 WpIG).

Representatives, senior management employees and other office holders may require MAS’ approval prior to an appointment or assuming an office (see question 2).

In particular, MAS must be notified of the appointment of representatives providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001 or carrying out regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (dealing in capital markets products, advising on corporate finance, fund and REIT management, product financing, providing credit ratings or custodial services). With some exceptions, they must be at least 21 years old, satisfy minimum academic qualification requirements, and complete prescribed modules of the Capital Markets and Financial Advisory Services examinations.

Specifically, employees holding executive, overall management, oversight or control functions in regulated companies are responsible for ensuring that the companies’ organization ensures the continued compliance with applicable financial market laws. Swiss financial market laws do not have enhanced responsibilities for different employee categories. Instead, a person’s fitness and propriety are assessed within the context of the specific requirements and functions of a given company, the scope of activities at that company, and the complexity of that company.

Employees who qualify as risk-takers have enhanced responsibilities due to their influence on an institution’s risk profile, including documentation requirements. Investment brokers advising private clients are also subject to strict rules and extensive documentation requirements, inter alia, on the investment advice provided and how the investment was tailored to the preferences, investment objectives, and other characteristics of the investor.

Employees who are managers and executives or above generally have enhanced responsibilities, particularly regarding corporate governance.

MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct provide that senior managers (ie, those principally responsible for day-to-day management) should be clearly identified, fit and proper for their roles, and responsible for the actions of employees and the conduct of the business under their purview. As for material risk personnel (ie, individuals who have the authority to make decisions or conduct activities that can significantly impact the FI’s safety and soundness, or cause harm to a significant segment of the FI’s customers or other stakeholders), they should be fit and proper for their roles, and subject to effective risk governance, appropriate incentive structures, and standards of conduct.

Subsidiary legislation or other MAS guidelines specific to the FI’s sector also contain corporate governance regulations, prescribing responsibilities to the board of directors, nominating committees, or senior management.

MAS’ Guidelines on Risk Management Practices – Board and Senior Management further states that an FI’s board and senior management are responsible for governing risk within an institution. This includes setting up appropriate risk management systems, stress-testing programmes and business contingency plans.

There is no list of financial services employees as such, but the NBB will assess, among others, the experience and the credibility of the person when granting the “fit and proper” authorisation.

This concerns anyone in an executive position (i.e. members of the legal administrative body, the effective management and independent controllers) at a financial institution (see question 2).

However, it should be noted that financial services institutions approved by the NBB are listed on its website. Moreover, banking and investment services intermediaries must be registered and file through an online application to the FSMA (www.fsma.be) documents attesting, inter alia, their knowledge, clean criminal record, and professional liability insurance.

Yes. Investment firms must disclose the identities of employees providing investment advice, as well as sales representatives and compliance officers, to BaFin, which maintains a non-public database of registered employees (section 87 WpHG).

As a first step of the registration process, companies need to register on the MVP notification and publication platform. After successful registration, they can apply for admission to the employee and complaints register. Different notification procedures are available, depending on whether employees are notified for the first time or amendments are being made.

The MAS keeps a register of appointed representatives conducting regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (see question 4) or providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001. The register is updated based on an FI’s notifications of appointment to the MAS, with prerequisites applying to the appointment of such representatives (see question 4).

Specific rules apply to personnel whose professional activities have a significant impact on the company's risk profile (article 92, 2. Directive 2013/36/EU; article 67, Act of 25 April 2014), including:

• all members of the legal administrative body and senior management;
• staff members with supervisory responsibility for control functions or business units;
• employees who received significant remuneration during the previous year (ie, 500,000 EUR or more and equal to or greater than the average remuneration of members of the legal administrative body and senior management) and the employee performs the professional activity in a critical business unit and the nature of the activity is such that it has a significant impact on the risk profile of the business unit concerned.

Variable remuneration is capped at 50% of the fixed remuneration or 50,000 EUR, without exceeding the fixed remuneration, whichever is higher (article 1, Annex II, Act of 25 April 2014). Moreover, it is forbidden to have a guaranteed variable remuneration (article 5). 40% of variable remuneration is delayed for four to five years, with a minimum of five years for members of the legal administrative body and senior management. When the variable remuneration is very high, the percentage of the delayed variable remuneration is 60% (article 7).

The total variable remuneration will be significantly reduced if the company generates a reduced or negative financial return. This applies to variable remuneration not yet earned, variable remuneration earned but not yet paid, and variable remuneration that has already been paid. It occurs through malus or clawback schemes, in particular when the person has participated in practices that have resulted in significant losses, has not respected the “fit and proper” duties or has set up a specific mechanism for tax fraud (article 8).

A termination indemnity is considered a variable remuneration, except for a legal indemnity in lieu of notice or a non-compete indemnity (based on the calculation provided by the Employment Contracts Act). Furthermore, a termination indemnity higher than 12 months, or 18 months for a motivated decision from the remuneration committee, can only be granted subject to the approval of the first ordinary general meeting following the termination (articles 12 and 12/1).

For companies that benefit from government intervention, there is in principle no variable remuneration, except for the person recruited after the public intervention to carry on the restructuring. Moreover, the termination indemnity is capped at nine months, unless the legal indemnity in lieu of notice (based on seniority) is higher (articles 16 and 17).

Yes, there are specific sets of rules on remuneration in the financial services sector, varying in detail per sub-sector. Rules are particularly strict for material risk-takers of significant institutions in light of the increased risk profile of their activities for the entire organisation.

Variable and fixed remuneration must have an appropriate ratio to each other. For financial institutions, the ratio is appropriate if the variable remuneration both complies with an upper limit of 100% of the fixed remuneration (up to 200% maximum based on a shareholders’ resolution) and provides an effective behavioural incentive. Further, variable remuneration may need to be spread over deferral periods. Depending on the sector, remuneration may have to be made subject to malus, holdback or clawback provisions in case specific risks materialise or the employee is found guilty of misconduct. Further, certain remuneration elements must be granted in instruments instead of cash payments, with restrictions around this element again varying by sub-sector.

Disclosure requirements may apply depending on the employee’s role. For example, with some exemptions, financial advisors are required to disclose to the client the remuneration that they receive or will receive for making any recommendations in respect of a particular investment product, or executing a purchase or sale contract relating to a designated investment product on their clients’ behalf.

MAS’ Guidelines on Corporate Governance (applicable to designated financial holding companies, banks, and some insurers) also requires the FI’s board of directors to have a formal and transparent procedure for developing policies on and fixing the remuneration of directors, executives, and key management personnel. A separate remuneration committee made up of non-executive directors must be established to make the relevant recommendations. MAS expects compliance with these guidelines in a manner commensurate with the size, nature of activities and risk profile of the FI. Diverging from the guidelines is acceptable to the extent that FIs explicitly state and explain how their practices are consistent with the policy intent of the relevant principle.

Companies listed on the Singapore stock exchange have similar requirements under MAS’ Code of Corporate Governance, and these also exist in subsidiary legislation applicable to the FI. As for all other non-exempt companies, director and employee remuneration will ordinarily have to be disclosed through publicly available financial statements, under applicable accounting standards.

Apart from the above, there are no strict limits on compensation or requirements to impose deferral, malus or clawback provisions. Employers may include such provisions in their contracts, but should be aware that the enforcement of such provisions may be subject to challenge.

To keep the “fit and proper” authorisation, the concerned persons must ensure that they follow the relevant training.

Regarding the prevention of money laundering, financial institutions must ensure that personnel whose function requires it is aware of the legislation, knows the internal policies, is aware of the internal reporting procedure and receives special continuing education programmes (article 11, §1, Act of 18 September 2017).

At a sectoral level, JC Nos. 310 and 341 provide for an individual right to five days of training per year per full-time equivalent employee.

Qualification requirements exist for specific roles (eg, traders), and employers must ensure they comply with them by only contracting employees with the required skills, certifications and experience. The expertise of employees providing investment advice, sales representation, and compliance advice must also be continuously maintained and regularly updated.

Examinations (see question 4) and continuing education requirements apply to certain employees in the capital markets services, financial advice and insurance sectors.

The NBB has issued a Fit & Proper Handbook, which was last updated on 22 December 2022.

Besides, Febelfin has adopted codes of conduct and regulations for relations between financial institutions and their customers, which can be considered standard practice in the sector.

Each financial institution may also provide more concrete or more precise quality standards for its clientele.

Employees must conduct themselves in line with their respective roles and responsibilities, which in client-facing roles indirectly leads to them being subject to specific behavioural obligations (such as having to adhere to certain procedures and documentation obligations before selling a service or product to a client). In addition, company policies required by the regulator (eg, on sustainability or equal treatment) often include behavioural standards.

In addition, there are voluntary standards adopted by various professional associations, such as the Code of Conduct of the Federal Association of Financial Services, which apply to their respective members.

Generally, MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct emphasises the importance of reinforcing standards of proper conduct among all employees, while employees conducting regulated activities must remain fit and proper for their roles under MAS’ Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria.

Guidelines, codes, directions, notices and legislation in relation to corporate governance and risk management (including those mentioned in questions 5 and 6) should also be considered.

If a new element occurs that can influence one or more of the five criteria assessing the suitability of a person for the “fit and proper” authorisation (see question 2), the financial institution must file the adequate form with the NBB.

Notification to the NBB is also required in the event of termination or reappointment.

Yes. Under section 87 WpHG, investment firms must notify BaFin of any changes regarding employees providing investment advice, sales representation, and compliance advice. This includes, for example, personal data or a change of the responsible sales representative, but also the termination of the activity. Changes must be communicated to BaFin within one month.

Further, investment firms must notify BaFin as soon as a substantial customer complaint is made against one or more employees based on his or her activities in connection with investment advice. This applies, for example, to allegations of incorrect investment advice. The notification to BaFin must be submitted within six weeks of receipt of the complaint. Details on the content of the notification are governed by section 8 paragraph 4 of the Securities Trading Act Employee Notification Ordinance.

There are further notification obligations if there are doubts about an employee‘s reliability under the relevant statutory rules. For example, in their initial declaration of reliability under section 24 paragraph 1 No. 1 KWG and section 5b Ordinance on Notifications and Submission of Documents under the KWG, future managing directors and persons acting as sole representatives of credit institutions and financial services institutions must immediately report to BaFin in writing any subsequent changes that may be relevant to their reliability. This applies to all facts that were also relevant for the initial reliability assessment (eg, because an employee was convicted of certain financial crimes). In addition, BaFin must also receive notifications of preliminary proceedings, indictments and convictions of certain financial sector employees according to the Order on Notifications in Criminal Matters.

Forms need to be submitted to the MAS when an individual ceases to act as a representative in regulated activities or financial advisory services. Depending on the FI, the MAS may also have to be informed of appointments or changes of representatives, directors, chief executive officers, and other key officeholders (see questions 2 and 4).

MAS notices are also required for the reporting of misconduct for employees who are representatives of certain capital market service providers, financial advisers, and insurance broking staff. Examples of reportable misconduct include acts involving fraud, dishonesty or other offences of a similar nature, and non-compliance with regulatory requirements. Specific declaration forms and timelines may apply depending on the FI. An FI may also be required to submit updates on cases where investigations have not concluded or disciplinary action was not taken, or submit a declaration that there was no misconduct reported in a given calendar year.  

While not specific to financial services employees, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 requires any person with knowledge, or reasonable grounds to suspect, that any property is being used in connection with criminal activity to file a Suspicious Transaction Report with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. MAS notices concerning the prevention of anti-money laundering and incidents of fraud emphasise this obligation.

EU Directive 2019/1937 on whistleblowing has been transposed in Belgium by the Act of 28 November 2022. Financial services are included in its material scope (article 2, 1°, b)). In general, companies with more than 250 employees had to create an internal whistleblowing system by 15 February 2023. For companies with between 50 and 250 employees, the deadline was 17 December 2023. However, these thresholds do not count for legal entities who are active in financial services, therefore they needed to install an internal whistleblowing system no matter their employee count and respect the deadline of 15 February 2023 (article 57, §3). The FSMA will have to verify whether the financial institutions are respecting their whistleblowing obligations (article 36). Furthermore, persons who report violations relating to financial services receive better protection and are awarded higher lump sum compensation if they are the victim of a retaliation measure (six months gross remuneration; article 27, §3).

Regarding the prevention of money laundering, financial institutions were already required to provide a procedure to enable their personnel, agents or distributors to report a violation of the legislation, through a specific, independent and anonymous channel (article 10, Act of 18 September 2017).

The employer must ensure the wellbeing of its employees, which includes the prevention of harassment. If harassment has occurred, they must provide appropriate support, including remediating measures, protection against dismissal and investigation by a prevention advisor specialising in psychosocial risks (Wellbeing Act of 4 August 1996, Wellbeing Code of 28 April 2017). The procedure must be detailed in the work rules of the financial institutions.

Employers are generally required under German law, regardless of their industry, to exercise a duty of protection regarding their employees. If they become aware of allegations of employee harassment, the employer must investigate and take appropriate steps to either dispel the suspicion (and protect the employee incorrectly accused of harassment) or sanction the perpetrator. As such, many employers have a process or policy in place governing this.

From July 2023, employers must observe the mandatory regulations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, implementing the EU Whistleblower Directive. This regulation applies automatically to many institutions in the financial sector, and beyond that to others based on their number of employees (starting with a headcount of over 50) or by virtue of belonging to the public sector. In corporate groups, multiple employers can set up a joint office to receive reports and conduct further investigations. Public sector employers must, in principle, establish an internal reporting office regardless of the number of employees. In addition, employees will also have the option to report breaches externally. The purpose of the new legislation is to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers and ensure that they do not face any disadvantages within the framework of the legal requirements – including, inter alia, where the whistleblowing concerns matters such as breaches of European law concerning financial services, financial products and financial markets, as well as the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.

An office at the Federal Ministry of Justice will be established as the governing body for the new law. In addition, the Federal Antitrust Office and BaFin will be responsible for sanctioning certain breaches under their respective remit (antitrust and financial services, respectively).

MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct provide that appropriate policies, systems and processes should be put in place to enforce expected conduct, including transparent investigation and disciplinary procedures, formal whistleblowing programmes, and a process for the reporting and escalation of issues to senior management on any issues related to employee conduct. Anti-workplace discrimination legislation is also expected in 2024.

If the person concerned is subject to “fit & proper” authorisation from the NBB (see question 2), a form must be filed with the NBB to inform it of the termination.

Furthermore, the settlement agreement cannot include payments that would not respect the caps for remuneration and termination indemnities (see question 7).

Finally, job security clauses have been negotiated at a sectoral level, meaning a specific procedure must be followed for individual or collective dismissal under JC No. 310, with a sanction of six to nine months’ remuneration.

Employment relationships with risk-takers of significant institutions whose annual fixed remuneration exceeds three times the contribution assessment ceiling for general pension insurance can be terminated more easily, in return for a severance payment, even if a unilateral dismissal is not socially justified. For this purpose, the institution needs to file a motion to the labour court to terminate the employment relationship during an ongoing dismissal protection dispute. The court will then terminate the employment relationship and award a severance payment of up to 12 months‘ salary.

Where employers wish to amicably terminate an employment relationship, they will usually offer a termination agreement that provides for a severance payment as consideration for the job loss. Severance payments offered by institutions under the German Banking Act are, in principle, treated as variable remuneration from a regulatory perspective. Unless certain exceptions and privileges apply, this means that severance payments are subject to the regulatory remuneration rules that apply to variable remuneration, meaning that, for example, the bonus cap and ex-post risk adjustment mechanisms of IVV apply (section 5 paragraph 6 sentence 1 IVV). Exceptions are permissible, inter alia, if severance payments are granted in line with the company’s general policy on severance payments, payments to which there is a legal entitlement, and severance payments to be made based on a final judgment or court settlement.

Depending on the employee concerned, the MAS may have to be notified of an employee ceasing to hold an office or to act as a representative (see questions 2, 4 and 11). Termination-related benefits and remuneration may also require disclosure (see question 7).

Apart from this, there are no industry-specific rules or protocols applicable to terminations. Singapore’s Employment Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, of general application to all employers, also prescribe rules concerning notice periods, the timing of final payments, and circumstances in which a termination may be wrongful, among other things.

There are no specific rules for the financial services sector, except that they cannot have an effect that does not respect the caps for remuneration (see question 7).

Post-contractual non-compete obligations will typically only be binding when a severance payment is agreed upon that amounts to at least 50% of the pro-rated annual remuneration that the employee received before the obligation comes into force). It is advisable to regularly review for which roles such arrangements are agreed upon as they can be costly, and a unilateral waiver does not automatically eliminate the obligation to pay compensation, only if sufficient advance notice is given.

In the financial services sector, the severance payment for non-competition covenants is considered variable remuneration and subject to the same regulatory compensation rules (for example, section 5 paragraph 6 sentence 1 IVV, section 6 paragraph 4 No. 2 Investment Firm Remuneration Ordinance). However, severance payments do not have to be factored into the ratio of variable to fixed remuneration according to section 25a paragraph 5 sentences 2 to 5 KWG if, subject to section 74 paragraph 2 of the German Commercial Code, the payments do not exceed the total fixed remuneration originally owed.

Singapore law in relation to post-termination restrictive covenants is of general application and not specific to the financial services sector. Such restraints are prima facie void, but may be valid and enforceable if they are reasonable (both in the interests of the parties and the public), and if they go no further than what is necessary to protect a party’s legitimate proprietary interest.

The Singapore Courts have recognised that an employer has legitimate proprietary interests in its trade connections (commonly protected by restraints against the solicitation of clients or customers); the maintenance of a stable, trained workforce (commonly protected by restraints against the poaching of employees); and its confidential information and trade secrets (commonly protected by confidentiality restraints). This is not a closed list.

Non-competition clauses are however relatively more difficult to enforce as compared to other restrictive covenants, and they may not be enforceable at all under Singapore law as it presently stands if an employer’s legitimate proprietary interests are already covered by other restraints. Even then, it may still be possible for the employer to obtain an ex parte interim injunction for non-competition though.

Guidelines on restrictive covenants are also expected to be released in the second half of 2024, which will look to shape norms and provide employers and employees with guidance regarding the inclusion and enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts.