The first appeals to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court for delayed justice are on their way
On March 19, 2023, FINMA ordered the write-down of Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds, causing investors to lose over CHF 16 billion. Between April and May 2023, approximately 2,500 investors filed around 230 appeals with the Swiss Federal Administrative Court against this decision[*]. More than two years have passed since then, but the proceedings are inexplicably at a standstill. The court has taken no further procedural steps. Investors have not even received the responses from FINMA and Credit Suisse (now UBS) to their appeals, even though these entities filed their pleadings with the court some time ago, following what appears to be a deliberate (and ethically questionable) strategy of delay.
For more than two years, investors have also been waiting for a decision from the SFAC on their request for full access to FINMA’s files. This access is vital to ascertain if the write-down of Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds was truly underpinned by valid economic and legal reasons. The lawyers involved in the proceedings are growing impatient. It is challenging for them to understand why the court is failing to forward to the plaintiffs the responses from FINMA and UBS that have been on its desk for some time, in some cases for almost two years.
On April 20, 2025, the «Sonntagszeitung» reported the opinion of some observers who expect to receive a decision from the SFAC by the end of the year. Unfortunately, for the reasons outlined below, we are not so optimistic. The document published below reveals that one of the many lawyers defending the AT1 investors has been very diligent in pressing the court. On three occasions, he insisted that the court forward FINMA’s and UBS’s responses to him, warning on the last occasion that he would appeal to the Supreme Court for delay in justice if his request was refused again.
On all three occasions, the SFAC justified its refusal by using always the same argument, i.e. that “internal coordination is underway regarding the numerous appeals in Italian, French, and German concerning the contested decision”. In its latest response, the SFAC also added that: “The appeals are therefore being dealt with in this context, taking into account the time required for coordination, on which it is not possible to comment at this stage”. (The translation from Italian to English of all the paragraphs quoted in this article was done by Antigua.news)
More than two years after the appeals were filed, therefore, the SFAC has announced that not only has it not yet completed its “internal coordination,” but it does not even know when it will be completed. Not being perplexed by such vagueness after so much time is difficult. In particular, it is tough to imagine that such an essential and authoritative Swiss federal judicial body does not have the resources and capabilities necessary to coordinate 230 appeals, even over such a long period of time. Nor is it clear why the SFAC’s alleged internal organizational problems should weigh on the shoulders of the appellants, who have been crying out for justice for far too long.
It is even more difficult to justify this delay when one considers that the civil dispute brought by several thousand former Credit Suisse shareholders before the Zurich Commercial Court (in which it is being contested the exchange value between CS and UBS shares following the merger) is at a much more advanced stage. Two exchanges of written pleadings have already taken place before the cantonal court; the plaintiffs have recently received UBS’s rejoinder of approximately seven hundred(!) pages and, barring further exchanges of submissions, they are preparing to enter the preliminary investigation phase.
Art. 29(1) of the Swiss Federal Constitution says: “Every person has the right to equal and fair treatment in judicial and administrative proceedings and to have their case decided within a reasonable time“. Is waiting over two years from the SFAC to receive FINMA and UBS’s response a reasonable amount of time? Many lawyers involved in AT1 case are asking themselves this question.
What is certain is that, given the circumstances, it seems rather unlikely that the SFAC will decide on the merits of the appeals this year. It is much more plausible that the Zurich Commercial Court will first reach a decision on the fate of the former Credit Suisse shareholders, or by other foreign courts. Barring any surprises, of course. The lawyer who has pressed the SFAC three times in vain for receiving copies of the responses from FINMA and UBS has already announced that he will file an appeal for delayed justice with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Others are moving in the same direction, according to information obtained by «Antigua.news». Therefore, it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether waiting more than two years for an “internal coordination” of 230 appeals is too long. We sincerely hope that, as the «Sonntagszeitung» wrote, the SFAC will act first and not allow itself to be accused of unjustifiable delay. It would be another detrimental blow to Switzerland’s reputation as a country governed by the rule of law and a reliable international financial center.
In the meantime, thanks to the «Sonntagszeitung» (article published on May 4, 2025), new documents have emerged from the aforementioned civil case pending before the Zurich Commercial Court. In particular, the contents of a pivotal letter sent on March 15, 2023, by Axel Lehmann (former CS chairman) to Thomas Jordan (former Swiss National Bank president) alongside four additional emails have been made public, confirming the massive falsehoods told by the CS officers to the detriment of investors. As we have already reported in the past (see e.g. AT1 case: Credit Suisse relationship managers lied to clients, too), on March 15, 2023, during a Financial Sector Conference in Riyadh, Axel Lehmann stated that Credit Suisse had already “taken its medicine” and had been “significantly de-risking its balance sheet” for more than five months, and was essentially ahead of the curve in dealing with potential liquidity issues. Regarding the possibility of accepting the government assistance, Lehmann stated unequivocally: “That’s not a topic. Look, we are regulated, we have a strong capital ratio, a very strong balance sheet, we are all hands on deck, so that’s not a topic whatsoever”.
The harsh truth, however, is that on the very same day, Lehman sent a dramatic letter to Jordan desperately asking for a loan to deal with Credit Suisse’s uncontrollable liquidity problems. This begs an urgent inquiry: Where was FINMA during this blatant market manipulation and colossal deception of investors? And where was the Swiss Federal Council? Someone obviously found it convenient to keep AT1 investors calm before serving them the write-down like a giant suppository.
In this sinister context, we can add the recent news that on May 23, 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected a claim for damages brought by a married couple against the Swiss Confederation. The couple had bought Credit Suisse stocks on March 10, 13, and 15, 2023, reassured by statements made at the time by the Swiss Federal Council about the bank’s health. The federal judges have not yet served the written grounds for the rejection of the appeal (the decision was communicated orally in court). However, this certainly does not bode well for investors hoping to obtain justice from the Swiss courts.
[*] According to some sources, which we have not been able to confirm with the SFAC, the number of appeals has since risen to over 300.
See also:
- CREDIT SUISSE AT1s CASE: The Unspoken Things
- CREDIT SUISSE AT1 BONDS: The Missed Opportunity
- Credit Suisse AT1: FINMA asks court not to show files to plaintiffs
- AT1 case: Credit Suisse relationship managers lied to clients, too
- Credit Suisse AT1 Bonds write-down: Swiss Court orders FINMA to disclose documents to plaintiffs
- Credit Suisse AT1: Bank challenges disclosure of documents related to FINMA order March 22, 2023
- FINMA banned Credit Suisse from repaying AT1s, Sonntagszeitung reveals
Story had my head spinning. I guess jt makes sense those is was meant to target
Is this a perfect example of “Baffle them with BS, or what?
The AT1 investors will never win in front of the Swiss courts. Swiss banks, politicians, Swiss Federal Council and juridicial system are very closely connected and they will never act against them self. The CS end it’s a very example for that: no one has been considered (in front of the law) responsible for this. This is also like a kind of mafia, just working cleaner and more discreet than the Italian one.