Employment in Financial Services

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.

As a legal requirement, it is necessary to issue the term of termination of the employment contract. This document specifies the amounts paid at that time (there is a difference between terminations for just cause and without cause).

For workers in the sector, general rules apply, as no specific rules are created by law or a collective instrument.

The general law regarding dismissals applies to employees in the financial services sector. Under French law, there are two grounds for dismissal: personal reasons, which are related to the employee's behaviour or state of health; and economic reasons, which are not related to the employee. In both cases, the cause must be real and serious (ie, the reason must be objective and materially verifiable, as well as proportionate to the facts put forward). Failing that, the judge may propose the reinstatement of the employee, but if one of the parties refuses, then the employee is entitled to compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause, the latter depending on the employee's seniority.

Certain grounds for dismissal are null and void, in particular dismissals that are discriminatory or contrary to a fundamental freedom. The employee may then be reinstated (in very specificcases) or compensated, but this compensation may not be less than six months' salary.

Dismissal for personal reasons cannot be declared before a preliminary interview with the employee and must be notified at least two working days after this interview, unless otherwise stipulated by collective bargaining agreement. For example, the national collective bargaining agreement for the banking industry stipulates that the preliminary interview cannot take place less than 7 calendar days, except in the case of more favourable legal provisions or specific arrangements (e.g. inaptitude), from the date of first presentation to the employee of the letter of summons (article 26).

Dismissal for economic reasons may be individual or collective. Individual dismissals for economic reasons also require a prior interview and notification of redundancy, but above all notification to the Administration. Collective dismissals for economic reasons require consultation of the Social and Economic Committee, as well as the establishment of an employment protection plan if the termination concerns at least 10 employees within 30 days.

Since 1 July 2010, the FMA's General Regulation requires investment service providers to pass an examination to obtain certification. This certification must be obtained within six months of hiring, so not securing this certification by the end of this period may justify a dismissal.

A dismissal means a redundancy payment is excluded, except in the case of employment protection plans, from assessment for social security contributions for the portion not subject to income tax within certain exemption limits. In addition, article L.511-84-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code excludes the variable portion of compensation that may be reduced or recovered as a penalty under the "clawback" mechanism from assessment for severance pay.

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.

There are no particular rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of an employee in the financial services sector. The termination procedures will follow the requirements under the Employment Ordinance and the contractual terms of the employment contract. In certain cases (eg, termination of senior executives), the parties may enter into a mutual release and settlement agreement.

The licensed corporations should notify the regulators of any changes, including cessation of appointment of the licensed representative and responsible officer or managers-in-charge of core functions, within seven business days. In the case of registered institutions, the notification should be made to both the SFC and the HKMA.

Under section 64R of the IO, within 14 days after the day on which an authorised insurer, a licensed insurance agency or a licensed insurance broker company (collectively, “Appointing Principal”) terminates the appointment of a licensed insurance agency, a licensed individual insurance agent, a licensed technical representative (agent), a licensed technical representative (broker) or a responsible officer (as the case may be), then the Appointing Principal should notify the IA in writing of the termination.

The general legal standards on termination of employment are also applicable to employees in the financial services sector. India is not an “at-will” jurisdiction but is also not an “employment-for-life” jurisdiction. In general, termination of employment may be carried out for reasonable cause or on account of misconduct. In cases of termination on any ground other than misconduct, the employee must be provided with prior notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof. The body of laws that govern employee rights around termination are the IDA, state-specific shops and establishments acts, standing orders, and the employment contract. Workmen (basically non-managers) have additional protection in terms of the right to retrenchment compensation when terminated.

Where possible it is important to try to resolve any outstanding issues that a PCF has or may have before the PCF's contract is terminated. An RFSP is required to give details of the circumstances of a PCF's termination of employment and to confirm whether or not there are outstanding issues regarding the PCF.

It is important to ensure that there are adequate provisions to govern the following in any settlement agreement or termination arrangements:

• adequate handover of operational responsibility;
• continued co-operation on operational matters within the employee's knowledge or in relation to matters that may subsequently be investigated by the CBI;
• secure return of all company property including any personal data; and
• post-termination confidentiality obligations and any other necessary post-termination restrictions.

Terminating an employee’s employment must occur in accordance with the terms of their contract, otherwise the employer risks a claim for wrongful dismissal.

Additionally, financial institutions have certain notification obligations to the IoM FSA as outlined in question 10. Where a settlement agreement is entered into in respect of the exit of an employee and a factor in their departure is a disciplinary issue, the IoM FSA will usually wish to know the terms of, and circumstances leading to, the settlement agreement. In particular, the IoM FSA will want to understand whether the reason for the termination was a systemic failure on the part of the financial institution or an issue with the individual and their capability or conduct. The settlement agreement cannot prevent an employee from making a protected disclosure and must not require the employee to warrant that they have not made a protected disclosure.

Under the Constitution and the FLL, an employee has the right to secure employment (employment stability right) and an employer cannot terminate an employment contract without legal cause.

An employer may only dismiss an employee under one or more of the legal causes provided for in article 47 of the FLL (eg, lack of ethics, dishonesty, violence, harassment, absence more than three times in a month without authorisation, disobedience, and intoxication). Dismissal should be carried out within the one month after the employer becomes aware of the legal cause for termination (statute of limitations).

The FLL requires employers to provide the employee with a written notice of dismissal in which the date and causes are expressly described. A lack of written notice makes the termination unlawful and triggers the severance obligation described below.

In addition, financial entities may end the employment of individuals without notice in the following circumstances:

• if a general manager or officer no longer complies with the legal requirements to occupy their position (see question 2);
• if the CNBV or the CNSF, as applicable, disqualifies, removes, or relieves individuals from their positions; and
• if a brokerage house’s proxies are no longer authorised by the CNBV.

If there are no legal grounds to justify the termination and an employee is dismissed, the dismissal is wrongful and the employee has the right to:

• be reinstated (article 49 of the FLL establishes the cases where an employer is exempt from reinstating an employee, for example employees of trust); or
• a severance payment (three months of salary, plus 12 days of salary for each year of service capped at twice the general minimum wage of the geographic area where the employee rendered services, plus 20 days of salary per year of service, and, if applicable, back pay.

These obligations are only enforceable (reinstatement and payment of severance) if the dismissal is deemed wrongful by the labour authorities in their corresponding resolution. Nevertheless, if there are no legal grounds that justify the termination, it is common practice to pay the severance in advance if there is no intention to reinstate the employee after termination.

When termination occurs, financial entities must inform the self-regulated bodies to revoke powers of attorney within five days. The self-regulated body must then inform the CNBV of the revocation. For the removal or resignation of the general manager and officers, financial entities must inform the corresponding authority within five to ten days, depending on the type of financial entity.

For the termination of employment of employees in general positions, there is no particular document to execute other than a termination document (resignation or employment termination agreement and release).

There are no particular rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of financial services employees.

Please see question 7 for more information on severance payments.

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 or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of an employee in the financial services sector. However, because changes in the strategic and executive management of, in particular, regulated companies such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are subject to a prior authorization by FINMA, the timing of termination and re-hiring of particular persons should be considered.

The general rules on the termination of an employment relationship apply under Swiss law: any employment contract concluded for an indefinite period may be unilaterally terminated by both employer and employee, subject to the contractual or (if no contractual notice period was agreed) statutory notice periods for any reason (ordinary termination).

The termination notice needs to be physically received before the notice period can start, meaning the notice needs to be received by the employee before the end of a month so that the notice period can start on the first day of the next month. If notice is not received before the end of the month, the notice period would start the month following the receipt of the notice. A termination notice might be either delivered by mail or personally.

Swiss law does not provide for payment in lieu of a notice period. The only option in this regard is to either send the employee on garden leave or to agree within the termination agreement to terminate the employment relationship per an earlier termination date than the one provided for in the termination notice.

As a general rule, an employment contract may be terminated by either party for any reason. However, Swiss statutory law provides for protection from termination by notice for both employers and employees, distinguishing between abusive and untimely notices of termination.

Based on social policy concerns, the employer must observe certain waiting periods, during which a notice cannot validly be served (so-called untimely notice). Such waiting periods apply (art. 336c CO), for example, during compulsory military or civil defence service, full- or part-time absence from work due to illness or an accident, or during an employee’s pregnancy and 16 weeks following the birth of the child. Any notice given by the employer during these waiting periods is void. Any notice given before the respective period is effective, but once the special situation has occurred and for the period it lasts, the running of the applicable notice period is suspended and only continues after the end of the period in question.

In addition, Swiss civil law defines certain grounds based on which terminations are considered abusive (article 336 CO). Termination by the employer might be considered abusive (eg, if it is based on a personal characteristic of the other party (eg, gender, race, age), or if the other party exercises a right guaranteed by the Swiss Federal Constitution (eg, religion or membership in a political party) unless the exercise of this right violates an obligation of the contract of employment or is seriously prejudicial to the work climate). If the employer abusively terminates the employment contract, the employer has to pay damages to the employee and a penalty of up to six months' remuneration (article 336a CO). Nevertheless, an abusive termination remains valid.

Regarding settlement agreements, Swiss employment law allows the conclusion of such agreements, but there are strict limits on the parties’ freedom of contract. Termination agreements may not be concluded that circumvent statutory provisions on employee protection. According to Swiss case law, termination agreements are usually valid and enforceable if both parties make real concessions, and if the agreement is also favourable for the employee. To conclude a termination agreement initiated by the employer, the employee must also be granted a sufficient reflection period. No further formalities need to be observed when concluding termination agreements, although it is generally advisable to have them in writing.

As noted in question 7, the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised persons.  In this regard, both sets of guidance provide that where an authorised entity provides discretionary payouts on termination of employment (either by way of severance payments, or other payments, such as “golden parachutes”), these should be subject to appropriate limits or shareholder approval.  In addition, they should be aligned with the firm’s overall financial status and performance.

Settlement agreements

The whistleblowing measures outlined above are complemented by mandatory requirements for SM&CR firms concerning settlement agreements, namely that any such agreement must include a term stating that it doesn’t prevent the individual from making a protected disclosure, and must not require the individual to warrant that they have not made a protected disclosure or that they do not know of any information which could lead to them doing so (a “protected disclosure” is a type of disclosure recognised in English employment law that gives the person making it legal protection from retaliatory detrimental treatment).

SM&CR firms entering into settlement agreements must also ensure that they are not drafted in a way that is incompatible with other relevant regulatory requirements. For example, there is a specific prohibition in the FCA Handbook on firms entering into any arrangements or agreements with any person that limit their ability to disclose information required by the regulatory reference rules (see question 2). As such, terms relating to confidentiality and the provision of employment references should allow the firm sufficient flexibility to comply with regulatory reference requirements, which could include a requirement to update such a reference. In addition, any obligations of confidentiality should include a carve-out to permit relevant regulatory disclosures and reports.

Handover procedures

The SM&CR includes requirements designed to ensure that adequate handovers take place between outgoing and incoming senior managers. Firms must take all reasonable steps to ensure that senior managers (and anyone who has management or supervisory responsibilities for them) have all the information and material that they could reasonably expect to have to perform their responsibilities effectively and under the requirements of the regulatory system. This applies when someone becomes a senior manager and when an existing senior manager takes on a new job or new responsibilities (or when their responsibilities or job are being changed).

Firms must have a handover policy in place to ensure compliance with these requirements. They must also make and maintain adequate records of steps taken to comply with them.

The information and material handed over should be practical and helpful, with an assessment of what issues should be prioritised, and judgement and opinion as well as facts, figures and records. It should also include details about unresolved or possible regulatory breaches and any unresolved concerns expressed by the FCA, the PRA or any other regulatory body.

The format and arrangements of a handover should allow for an orderly transition, which should include the outgoing senior manager contributing to the handover everything that it would be reasonable to expect them to know and consider relevant, including their opinions. This could be achieved by requiring outgoing senior managers to prepare a handover certificate, but the FCA recognises that this will not always be practical.

To ensure that these requirements are satisfied, it is good practice to include in senior managers’ employment contracts (and settlement agreements) specific obligations relating to handovers.

Reallocating senior managers’ responsibilities

In addition to ensuring that adequate handovers take place between outgoing and incoming senior managers, firms should also ensure on the departure of a senior manager that their responsibilities are reallocated and that this is recorded in a way that is compliant with relevant regulatory requirements. This may include temporary reallocation to one or more existing senior managers where the replacement does not take over immediately on the departure of the departing senior manager, as well as updating the firm’s management responsibilities map and statements of responsibilities.

Reporting requirements

When an individual ceases to perform an SMF, the firm must generally notify the relevant regulatory within seven business days.

SM&CR firms must notify the relevant regulators if certain types of disciplinary action are taken, which can include dismissal – see question 10.

Form U5, the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration, is used by broker-dealers to terminate the registration of an associated person with FINRA and in other applicable jurisdictions and self-regulatory organisations. A FINRA member firm must file Form U5 within 30 days of an employee’s termination. This form includes the reason for an employee’s departure and must include a detailed description of the reasons for termination. Employee appeals related to the content of the U5 are arbitrated before FINRA (eg, if an employee challenges their termination).

Payments to retiring employees

FINRA prohibits paying commissions to unregistered persons, except for retired representatives receiving trailing commissions where a bona fide contract was entered into between the broker-dealer and the retiring employee.

California

California law prohibits the use of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements that are designed to restrict an employee's ability to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct the employee has reason to believe is unlawful. Provisions protecting the identity of a claimant are permitted where requested by the claimant. California law also prohibits “no-rehire” provisions in settlements of employment disputes, with limited exceptions for employees whom the employer, in good faith, determined engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault, or any criminal conduct.

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).

Yes, restrictive covenants are possible for financial service employees. However, restrictions on work in other companies in the sector (non-competition) must be paid for less than 24 months. These criteria are not provided for by law, but were constructed by Brazilian courts when adjudicating on this issue.

Three specific clauses are potentially relevant to employees in the financial services sector.

Firstly, regarding the confidentiality clause, employees in the financial services sector are bound to respect professional and banking secrecy.

More specifically, article 25 of Section III of Chapter 4 of Title II of Book 1 of the national collective agreement for financial companies of 22 November 1968, provides that all staff members are bound by professional secrecy within the company and towards third parties. Employees may not knowingly pass on to another company information specific to their employer or previous employer.

Article 24 of Chapter 3 of Title III of the national collective bargaining agreement for bank employees of 10 January 2000 codifies the absolute respect of professional secrecy.

Article 44 of Chapter 2 of Title IV of the national collective bargaining agreement for the financial markets of 11 June 2010 states that the employee must comply specifically with the rules of conduct regarding professional secrecy, both within the company and concerning third parties.

Confidentiality clauses can also be concluded between the employee and his or her employer, to reinforce the obligation of confidentiality.

In principle, a confidentiality clause allows for the protection of certain information exchanged during the contract and can be enforced after the termination of the employment contract if it is not perpetual. In this case, it is quite conceivable to contractualise such an obligation for employees in the financial services sector because of their functions, which by their very nature require discretion.

The law already states that anyone who uses or discloses confidential information obtained in the course of negotiations without authorisation is liable. Case law has addressed the issue of confidentiality clauses by ruling that an employee not executing this clause after his or her departure makes him or her liable for the resulting damage, without the employer having to prove gross negligence. The clause may be accompanied by a pecuniary sanction, which may be altered by the judge if it is lenient or excessive.

This clause in no way imposes a non-compete obligation and, therefore, does not entitle the employee to financial compensation.

In practice, it is complex to ensure compliance with this clause; however, the more specific the clause, the more effective it is.

Secondly, a non-compete clause allows an employer to limit an employee's professional activity at the end of an employment contract to prevent that employee from working for a competing company.

Despite the specificity of the activities of the financial sector, it seems that the common law of noncompetition clauses applies.

Thus, such a clause may be provided for by a collective agreement, in which case it is a conventional non-compete obligation. To be enforceable, the employee must have been informed of the existence of the applicable collective agreement. In this case, article 35 of Chapter I of Title IV of the national collective bargaining agreement for financial markets of 11 June 2010 provides for a non-compete obligation.

The non-compete clause is, in the majority of cases, contractual (ie, present in the employee’s employment contract). To be valid, this clause must meet various cumulative conditions to be compatible with the principle of freedom to work.

It must be essential to the protection of the legitimate interests of the company, limited in time and space, take into account the specificities of the employee's job, and include an obligation for the employer to pay the employee meaningful financial compensation. All these conditions are cumulative, and the employer cannot unilaterally extend the scope of the clause, otherwise it is null and void. Given the specificity of the activity of companies in the financial services sector, the condition of protection of the legitimate interests of the company would be met. However, taking into account the specificities of the employee's job may undermine such a clause if it is proven that his or her training and experience would prevent him or her from finding a job. The company's interest in imposing a noncompete clause must therefore be demonstrated.

The judge may restrict the application of the non-compete clause by limiting its effect in time, space or other terms when it does not allow the employee to engage in an activity consistent with his or her training and experience. However, the scope of application of the clause cannot be reduced by the judge if only the nullity of the clause has been invoked by the employee. If the non-compete clause is not enforced, the employer may take summary proceedings against the former employee who does not respect it, and also against the employee's new employer if they were hired with full knowledge of the facts, or if they continue to be employed after learning of the clause.

The employer may waive the clause if this is explicit and results from an unequivocal will. In the specific case of contractual termination, the employer who wishes to waive the clause must do so no later than the termination date set in the agreement.

Finally, concerning the non-solicitation clause, such a clause can be concluded between two companies through a commercial contract. These companies mutually prohibit each other from hiring their respective employees. Therefore, this clause is distinct from a non-compete clause and does not meet its conditions of validity. However, it must be proportionate to the legitimate interests to be protected given the purpose of the contract.

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.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. The rules concerning post-termination restrictive covenants are governed by common law principles in which they will only be enforced if the restriction is necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate business interest and is reasonable in scope and duration.

Post-termination non-competes are not enforceable, as they are treated as a restraint of trade. Courts have given prevalence to the livelihood of the employee over the employer’s interests. However, a reasonable non-solicit restriction may be enforceable in India.[1]

Employees in financial services are also bound by post-employment (for both resignation and retirement) obligations.[2] RBI employees[3] who cease to be in service should not accept or undertake “commercial employment”[4] for one year from the date on which they cease to be in service without the prior approval of the concerned authority. For SEBI employees[5], the cooling-off period is also one year. “Commercial employment”[6] broadly includes employment in any company or setting up their own practice without having professional qualifications and relying only on official experience. Such engagement may bestow an unfair advantage upon clients by virtue of the ex-employees’ prior experience at the organisation. The grant of prior approval by the concerned authority is dependent on whether there is any ensuing conflict of interest from such engagement.

No there are no bespoke rules that apply. Post termination restrictions in Ireland are void as being in restraint of trade unless it can be shown that the restrictions are necessary to protect an employer's legitimate proprietary interest and they are proportionate and reasonable in their scope and duration to achieve that protection[i].

[i] Law as of 15 April 2024

The IoM FSA does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. Post-termination restrictive covenants will be a matter of contract and will typically include non-compete, non-solicitation and non-dealing restrictions. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. Restraint of trade provisions are, in principle, contrary to public policy as a result of which it is for the employer to justify the length and scope of the restrictive covenant and show that it goes no further than necessary to protect its legitimate business interests. If a restraint is considered to be excessive, the courts will not generally rewrite or modify it to make it enforceable and, therefore, the whole of a defective covenant could fall away or be of no effect.

There are no particular rules or legal provisions concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. Nevertheless, it is common practice to execute termination agreements with officers and general managers whereby non-disclosure, non-compete and non-solicitation provisions are set forth by the parties. The use of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in termination agreements is only recommended for very specific employees and must be negotiated when the employment is terminated.

Plain non-compete and non-solicitation provisions binding employees after termination are not enforceable under Mexican law, because the Mexican Constitution grants individuals the right to perform any job, industry, commerce or work as long it is legal and not prohibited by a judicial or governmental decision.

Post-employment non-compete obligations, which are treated as an exception, must be agreed upon in connection to specific activities that may be deemed unfair competition, and may be enforced with economic compensation.

The period of enforceability must be proportional to:

• the number of years of employment;
• the level of information and importance of the position;
• the economic compensation; and
• the scope of the non-compete obligations.

Unfair competition and solicitation – either for business, or to induce other individuals to leave the company, while the employment contract between an individual and employer is in effect – may be considered misconduct. This misconduct is a cause of termination without notice for the company, and therefore it is feasible to enforce it.

The terms and conditions must be specifically addressed in writing, within the employment termination agreement, making express reference to the importance of the information, potential competition, activities that may be deemed unfair competition, intellectual property, and commercial advantages. The compensation paid is usually similar to or above the income of the employee while he or she was active with the company. Clawback and damages payments for breach of contract are standard practices.

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for financial services employees.

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. 

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector in Switzerland. Rather, general post-contractual non-compete regulations come into play: the parties of an employment contract may agree on a non-compete clause, which must be included in the employment contract in writing to be valid. For the non-compete clause to be relevant, it must be sufficiently limited in terms of time, place and subject matter. Normally, the duration of a post-termination non-compete clause is no more than one year; however, the statutorily permissible duration is three years.

As a prerequisite for a contractual non-compete clause to be binding, access to sensitive data is required. The employee must either have access to customer data or manufacturing or business secrets. However, access alone is not enough. There must also be the possibility of harming the employer using this knowledge.

If a relationship between the customer and the employee or employer is personal (which is, for example, the case for lawyers or doctors), a post-termination non-compete clause is not applicable according to the Federal Supreme Court.

If there is an excessive non-compete clause, this can be restricted by a judge. In practice, most of the time, no restriction of the post-termination non-compete clause is imposed if the employer offers consideration in return for the agreement. The prohibition of competition may become invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the clause can become irrelevant if the employer has no more interest in maintaining the non-compete clause. Secondly, the clause is not effective if the employer has terminated the employment relationship. However, this does not apply if the employee has given the employer a reason to terminate the employment relationship.

Swiss employment law does not provide for any compensation for a post-termination non-compete clause.

The DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.

The SM&CR does not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in the UK to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector. The only caveat to this is that firms should ensure that such terms do not include any provision that might conflict with the regulatory duties of either the firm or the employee. This will be a rare occurrence in practice for most types of restrictive covenant, but could arise in respect of post-termination contractual obligations that are closely associated with restrictive covenants, namely those relating to confidentiality. As such, firms should ensure that confidentiality clauses in employment contracts or other agreements such as NDAs include appropriate carve-outs.

The enforceability of restrictive covenants varies greatly depending on applicable state law. Many states impose specific requirements or limitations on enforceable covenants.

FINRA-regulated firms must comply with additional regulations:

• FINRA rules prohibit interference with a customer’s choice to follow a former representative during a change in employment where there is no existing dispute with the customer about the account. The FINRA-registered agent must help transfer a customer’s account in the event of such a customer request. Note that this only explicitly affects requests by customers and not solicitation by a representative. A non-solicit provision might be upheld whereas a non-compete might not.

• Broker-dealer firms that are signatories to the Protocol for Broker Recruiting are subject to additional requirements. Under this protocol, a departing employee may be permitted to take certain information regarding clients they serviced while at the firm to a new employer and use that information to solicit clients. Non-signatories are not bound to this protocol and can sue departing brokers for violating the terms of otherwise enforceable covenants.

Non-competes and so-called garden leave provisions are regularly included in termination documents. The enforceability of these covenants vary based on jurisdiction, with courts evaluating provisions based on duration and geographic scope.

New York

New York law disfavours non-compete agreements as a general rule. However, such agreements may be enforceable if the restrictions are reasonable and are intended to protect a legitimate interest. A court can enforce a non-compete only if the covenant:

• is no greater than required to protect an employer’s legitimate interests;
• does not impose undue hardship on the employee;
• does not cause injury to the public; or
• is reasonable in duration and geographic scope.

California

California law does not allow post-employment non-compete or non-solicit agreements except agreements involving the sale or dissolution of a business. California law protects employer confidential information and prohibits current or former employees from using employer confidential information in the solicitation of employees.