As we had already announced here, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejected a state‑liability action filed by two retail investors who lost money trading Credit Suisse shares in March 2023, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove a compensable loss caused by the Federal Council’s actions—or any actionable breach of official duty. The judgment (No. 2E_1/2024) was delivered orally at a public hearing on May 23, 2025 and has now been released in writing.

What the case was about

The couple bought 38,000 Credit Suisse shares on March 10, 13 and 15, 2023 for a total outlay of CHF 84,788.49 (fees included). They sold all shares on March 20, 2023 at CHF 0.76–0.80, realizing CHF 30,187.15 and claiming a loss of CHF 54,601.34. They sued the Swiss Confederation, arguing that (i) the Federal Council’s emergency ordinance enabling the UBS–CS weekend deal was unlawful; (ii) senior ministers misled the public about CS’s condition in December 2022 and March 2023; and (iii) the authorities pressured UBS and CS leaders to accept an unfairly low price. Procedurally, the court refused to consider the conduct attributed to FINMA or the Swiss National Bank, holding that such claims must be pursued through other legal remedies.

The legal yardstick the court applied

To make the State liable under the applicable law, a claimant must show (1) a wrongful official act, (2) a loss, and (3) an adequate causal link between the two. For purely financial loss, wrongfulness exists only if a specific protective norm has been breached. And when a claim targets a Federal Council ordinance, mere illegality is insufficient; liability requires a particularly serious violation of duty.

Why the court dismissed the case

The emergency‑law attack failed on loss and causation

The justices left open whether the Emergency Ordinance itself was “wrongful” because the claim failed at an earlier stage: the ordinance did not set any share price—the figures cited by the couple (CHF 0.76–0.80) merely reflect the market prices at which they chose to sell on March 20. An asserted higher “intrinsic value” is irrelevant under the court’s difference‑in‑value method for calculating damages. And the suggestion that “another buyer would have paid more” is just hypothetical lost profit, which the plaintiffs neither pleaded nor quantified as required by law. Regarding causation, the price decline was already underway before the ordinance; what crystallized the loss was the plaintiffs’ own sale, not the ordinance.

The “misleading statements” theory lacked a protective norm and causation

The only pre‑purchase ministerial comment the court could establish was then‑Finance Minister Ueli Maurer’s December 13, 2022 TV interview expressing optimism about CS after its capital increase and strategy reset. The court found no Federal Council statements about CS’s capital or liquidity in early–mid March 2023 prior to the plaintiffs purchase of shares; official communications resumed only on March 19. Even if the December remark were debatable, the plaintiffs failed to identify any legal norm intended to protect their assets from such a policy statement. And any reliance was not adequately causal given the dramatic deterioration visible by mid‑March 2023; a three‑month‑old expression of confidence could not reasonably drive a fresh multi‑tens‑of‑thousands investment into a stock in free fall. The court also rejected any “legitimate expectations” theory: the December comment was not a binding assurance that investments would be safe.

Alleged pressure on UBS/CS was not proven as an unlawful act

The court acknowledged that officials played an active mediating/steering role and negotiated state risk guarantees that influenced UBS’s bid—while also preparing alternative scenarios (forced merger, temporary public ownership). However, the price was set by UBS and accepted by CS; the record did not show the Federal Council coerced the boards into signing. Crucially, the plaintiffs never specified which duty such “pressure” would breach, nor how it caused their specific loss.

A note on the government’s “you sold too soon” rebuttal

The Confederation argued that if the exchange ratio in the UBS–CS deal were later found to be too low in a pending merger‑review action at the Zurich Commercial Court, the remaining shareholders would benefit from any court‑ordered cash equalization—but the plaintiffs sold their shares on March 20, thus cutting themselves off from any such remedy, which would break causation. The Supreme Court did not need to rely on this point after finding no loss and no causal link, but it recorded the argument.

The claim fails because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate recoverable damage or adequate causation, and they did not show any actionable breach of duty by the Federal Council. This ruling underscores how steep the climb is for investors seeking to shift market losses to the state following a crisis intervention. To win, plaintiffs must do more than criticize emergency measures or cite optimistic ministerial remarks—they must pinpoint a specific protective legal norm, quantify a real, non‑hypothetical loss, and prove that official conduct, rather than market forces or their own trading decisions, caused it. That threshold was not met here.