Clariden Leu was a separate legal entity from Credit Suisse at the time. In 2012, as part of a strategic move, Credit Suisse integrated Clariden Leu into its organisation, including its operations in Asia. As a result, Credit Suisse has assumed the assets and liabilities as well as the legal relationships of that firm.

This publication understands that Credit Suisse regards the allegations as without merit and will vigorously contest the claims. The Zurich-listed bank declined to comment when contacted by WealthBriefingAsia .

The news report said that Credit Suisse, one of the two defendants, claims that Swiss law rather than Singapore law governs its relationship with its clients, the plaintiffs. The younger plaintiff, who was 19 years old at the time, is considered an adult under Swiss law and that the trades he entered into - which resulted in the losses - are valid and binding.

The lawsuit has been brought by Ow Weng Fye (WF Ow) and his son, Ian Ow, against the Singapore branch of Credit Suisse and their relationship manager Aaron Chwee, who was with Clariden Leu. (As previously explained, Clariden Leu was a legally separate entity at the time the events are claimed to have taken place.)

The Ows, represented by Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier, are claiming that Credit Suisse and Mr Chwee failed to exercise the duty of care owed to them, and breached their contractual and statutory duties; the Ows are claiming damages amounting to $2.606 million, the losses which they claim were suffered by them as a result of the defendants' actions.

In their statement of claim, the Ows said they opened a joint private banking account with Clariden Leu in 2006. Father and son are alleging that Chwee advised Mr Ian Ow, without the knowledge of his father, to trade in Singapore MSCI futures contracts.

They claim that Chwee "falsely and/or inaccurately informed Ian Ow that the SiMSCI tracked the Straits Times Index (STI) when in fact the SiMSCI tracked the Singapore MSCI Free Index". They also said that Chwee "negligently and/or falsely represented to Ian Ow that Clariden had in place systems that would be able to tell when exactly to make trades such that the trades would be profitable and risk free so as to induce Ian Ow to act on the advice" when Clariden did not have such systems in place, the report said.

The Ows are also claiming that the trades are invalid given that they were made without Mr WF Ow's knowledge and that Mr Ian Ow was, at the material time, a minor - the first time the issue of minority has been raised in a legal suit involving the operation of bank accounts and futures trading. Under Singapore law, a minor is a person under the age of 21.

Credit Suisse, which is represented by senior counsel Alvin Yeo of WongPartnership, has in its defence denied the claims of the Ows that Clariden Leu did not have the said systems in place and asked the plaintiffs to prove the claim.  Credit Suisse says Mr Ian Ow's conduct, in continuing to instruct Chwee to carry out the futures trades even after he turned the age of 21, "amounts in any event to a ratification of the trades which he instructed before he reached 21".

And, given that both father and son had opened a joint account, in which they were said to be jointly and severally liable, "even if (which is denied) the trades are not binding on Ian Ow as alleged, the trades are nevertheless binding on WF Ow, who is jointly and severally liable for the trades which Ian Ow instructed," Credit Suisse says, the report added.