The Swiss Federal Administrative Court’s partial ruling on October 13, 2025, sparked controversy over the legal legitimacy of deeming Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds valueless. This occurred subsequent to an appeal lodged by Swiss financial regulator, Finma. Now, UBS has publicly announced its intention to file a similar appeal.
UBS made a public announcement in tandem with the release of its third-quarter results for the year 2025. The bank expressed its decision to challenge the Federal Administrative Court’s partial ruling in the AT1 litigation. The bank stated that the appeal aims to ensure the court considers their perspective on the significant facts relating to the acquisition. Further, UBS conveyed that filing an appeal is necessary to maintain the credibility of AT1 instruments, given their crucial role in the resolution and recovery of banks.
UBS underscored that writing off Credit Suisse’s AT1 instruments was a pivotal part of the rescue package. The bank expressed its belief that the write-off complied with the contractual terms of the AT1 instruments and the applicable law. UBS also maintained that Finma’s decision was within legal bounds.
UBS further made reference to the conclusions drawn by the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (PUK). PUK had declared that Credit Suisse would have been insolvent without the aid from the rescue package. They would have been incapable of continuing operations after Monday, March 20, 2023.
The Federal Administrative Court had concluded in October that the legal grounds for Finma’s decision to declare Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds valueless were insufficient. Finma had already challenged the decision at the Federal Supreme Court, and UBS has now decided to do the same.
Why has UBS decided to appeal the partial ruling of the Federal Administrative Court?
UBS intends to appeal the ruling to ensure that their viewpoint on the key facts concerning the acquisition is considered by the court. Additionally, they believe that an appeal is necessary to uphold the credibility of AT1 instruments, given the significant role they play in the recovery and resolution of banks.
What was UBS’s stance on the write-down of Credit Suisse’s AT1 instruments?
UBS has emphasized that the write-down of Credit Suisse’s AT1 instruments was a fundamental part of the rescue package. The bank believes that the write-down was in line with the contractual terms of the AT1 instruments and the law, asserting that Finma’s decision was lawful.
What did the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission conclude about Credit Suisse’s situation?
The Parliamentary Inquiry Commission concluded that without the rescue package, Credit Suisse would have become insolvent and would not have been able to continue operations beyond March 20, 2023.
