Two claimants sought damages for a series of unauthorized trades in their investment portfolio held at Bank Clariden Leu (absorbed by Credit Suisse in 2011). The Commercial Court of Zurich initially dismissed the claims on the grounds that the bank had given effective notice of the disputed transactions via hold mail and that the claimants had failed to effectively object to the transactions within the relevant objection period stipulated in the bank’s general terms and conditions. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirmed the principle that an investor, acting in good faith, must remonstrate in writing within the agreed objection period if they detect unauthorized transactions, or the transactions are deemed to be approved (fiction of approval). As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court with respect to one of the claimants who complained in time about the litigious transactions by phone, but in writing only a few months later. The claim of the other investor, however, was referred back to the Commercial Court for reconsideration. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the Commercial Court had arbitrarily established the facts and held that when determining that the notification of the transactions in dispute, triggering the objection period, had taken effect. The Nater Dallafior team included Roberto Dallafior and Patrik Salzmann (Decision 4A_42/2015 of 9 November 2015).