Litigation, regulatory and similar matters

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2018

Disclosure Of Litigation Regulatory And Similar Matters [Line Items]

Disclosure Of Contingent Liabilities Explanatory

Note 15 Provisions and contingent liabilities

b) Litigation, regulatory and similar matters

The Group operates in a legal and regulatory environment that exposes it to significant litigation and similar risks arising from disputes and regulatory proceedings. As a result, UBS (which for purposes of this Note may refer to UBS Group AG and / or one or more of its subsidiaries, as applicable) is involved in various disputes and legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration, and regulatory and criminal investigations.

Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome and the timing of resolution are often difficult to predict, particularly in the earlier stages of a case. There are also situations where the Group may enter into a settlement agreement. This may occur in order to avoid the expense, management distraction or reputational implications of continuing to contest liability, even for those matters for which the Group believes it should be exonerated. The uncertainties inherent in all such matters affect the amount and timing of any potential outflows for both matters with respect to which provisions have been established and other contingent liabilities. The Group makes provisions for such matters brought against it when, in the opinion of management after seeking legal advice, it is more likely than not that the Group has a present legal or constructive obligation as a result of past events, it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required, and the amount can be reliably estimated. Where these factors are otherwise satisfied, a provision may be established for claims that have not yet been asserted against the Group, but are nevertheless expected to be, based on the Group’s experience with similar asserted claims. If any of those conditions is not met, such matters result in contingent liabilities. If the amount of an obligation cannot be reliably estimated, a liability exists that is not recognized even if an outflow of resources is probable. Accordingly, no provision is established even if the potential outflow of resources with respect to such matters could be significant.

Specific litigation, regulatory and other matters are described below, including all such matters that management considers to be material and others that management believes to be of significance due to potential financial, reputational and other effects. The amount of damages claimed, the size of a transaction or other information is provided where available and appropriate in order to assist users in considering the magnitude of potential exposures.

In the case of certain matters below, we state that we have established a provision, and for the other matters, we make no such statement. When we make this statement and we expect disclosure of the amount of a provision to prejudice seriously our position with other parties in the matter because it would reveal what UBS believes to be the probable and reliably estimable outflow, we do not disclose that amount. In some cases we are subject to confidentiality obligations that preclude such disclosure. With respect to the matters for which we do not state whether we have established a provision, either (a) we have not established a provision, in which case the matter is treated as a contingent liability under the applicable accounting standard, or (b) we have established a provision but expect disclosure of that fact to prejudice seriously our position with other parties in the matter because it would reveal the fact that UBS believes an outflow of resources to be probable and reliably estimable.

With respect to certain litigation, regulatory and similar matters for which we have established provisions, we are able to estimate the expected timing of outflows. However, the aggregate amount of the expected outflows for those matters for which we are able to estimate expected timing is immaterial relative to our current and expected levels of liquidity over the relevant time periods.

The aggregate amount provisioned for litigation, regulatory and similar matters as a class is disclosed in the “Provisions” table in Note 15a above. It is not practicable to provide an aggregate estimate of liability for our litigation, regulatory and similar matters as a class of contingent liabilities. Doing so would require us to provide speculative legal assessments as to claims and proceedings that involve unique fact patterns or novel legal theories, that have not yet been initiated or are at early stages of adjudication, or as to which alleged damages have not been quantified by the claimants. Although we therefore cannot provide a numerical estimate of the future losses that could arise from litigation, regulatory and similar matters, we believe that the aggregate amount of possible future losses from this class that are more than remote substantially exceeds the level of current provisions. Litigation, regulatory and similar matters may also result in non-monetary penalties and consequences. For example, the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) described in item 5 of this Note, which we entered into with the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, Fraud Section in connection with our submissions of benchmark interest rates, including, among others, the British Bankers’ Association London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), was terminated by the DOJ based on its determination that we had committed a US crime in relation to foreign exchange matters. As a consequence, UBS AG pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for conduct in the LIBOR matter, paid a fine and is subject to probation through January 2020. A guilty plea to, or conviction of, a crime could have material consequences for UBS. Resolution of regulatory proceedings may require us to obtain waivers of regulatory disqualifications to maintain certain operations, may entitle regulatory authorities to limit, suspend or terminate licenses and regulatory authorizations, and may permit financial market utilities to limit, suspend or terminate our participation in such utilities. Failure to obtain such waivers, or any limitation, suspension or termination of licenses, authorizations or participations, could have material consequences for UBS.

The risk of loss associated with litigation, regulatory and similar matters is a component of operational risk for purposes of determining our capital requirements. Information concerning our capital requirements and the calculation of operational risk for this purpose is included in the “Capital management” section of this report.

Provisions for litigation, regulatory and similar matters by business division and Corporate Center unit¹
CHF million	Global WealthManage-ment	Personal & Corporate Banking	AssetManage-ment	Investment Bank	CC –Services	CC –Group ALM	CC – Non-core and Legacy Portfolio	UBS
Balance as of 31 December 2017	555	79	1	345	240	0	1,224	2,444
Balance as of 31 March 2018	546	79	1	323	216	0	1,166	2,331
Increase in provisions recognized in the income statement	69	0	0	3	1	0	82	154
Release of provisions recognized in the income statement	(12)	0	0	0	0	0	0	(13)
Provisions used in conformity with designated purpose	(47)	(3)	0	(1)	0	0	(42)	(94)
Foreign currency translation / unwind of discount	11	0	0	9	0	0	45	64
Balance as of 30 June 2018	567	75	0	333	216	0	1,251	2,442
1 Provisions, if any, for the matters described in this Note are recorded in Global Wealth Management (item 3 and item 4), the Investment Bank (item 7) and Corporate Center – Non-core and Legacy Portfolio (item 2). Provisions, if any, for the matters described in items 1 and 6 of this Note are allocated between Global Wealth Management and Personal & Corporate Banking, and provisions, if any, for the matters described in this Note in item 5 are allocated between the Investment Bank, Corporate Center – Services and Corporate Center – Non-core and Legacy Portfolio.

1. Inquiries regarding cross-border wealth management businesses

Tax and regulatory authorities in a number of countries have made inquiries, served requests for information or examined employees located in their respective jurisdictions relating to the cross-border wealth management services provided by UBS and other financial institutions. It is possible that the implementation of automatic tax information exchange and other measures relating to cross-border provision of financial services could give rise to further inquiries in the future. UBS has received disclosure orders from the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (FTA) to transfer information based on requests for international administrative assistance in tax matters. The requests concern a number of UBS account numbers pertaining to current and former clients and are based on data from 2006 and 2008. UBS has taken steps to inform affected clients about the administrative assistance proceedings and their procedural rights, including the right to appeal. The requests are based on data received from the German authorities, who seized certain data related to UBS clients booked in Switzerland during their investigations and have apparently shared this data with other European countries. UBS expects additional countries to file similar requests.

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled in 2016 that, in the administrative assistance proceedings related to a French bulk request, UBS has the right to appeal all final FTA client data disclosure orders.

Since 2013, UBS (France) S.A., UBS AG and certain former employees have been under investigation in France for alleged complicity in having illicitly solicited clients on French territory, regarding the laundering of proceeds of tax fraud, and of banking and financial solicitation by unauthorized persons. In connection with this investigation, the investigating judges ordered UBS AG to provide bail (“caution”) of EUR 1.1 billion and UBS (France) S.A. to post bail of EUR 40 million, which was reduced on appeal to EUR 10 million.

In February 2016, the investigating judges notified UBS AG and UBS (France) S.A. that they have closed their investigation. In July 2016, UBS AG and UBS (France) S.A. received the National Financial Prosecutor’s recommendation (“réquisitoire”). In March 2017, the investigating judges issued the trial order (“ordonnance de renvoi”) that charges UBS AG and UBS (France) S.A., as well as various former employees, with illicit solicitation of clients on French territory and with participation in the laundering of the proceeds of tax fraud, and that transfers the case to court. The trial is scheduled to start in October 2018. In October 2017, the Investigation Chamber of the Court of Appeals decided that UBS (France) S.A. shall not be constituted as a civil party in the guilty plea proceedings against the former UBS (France) S.A. Head of Front Office. UBS (France) S.A. has appealed this decision to the French Supreme Court (“Cour de cassation”). The appeal is pending, although the criminal court subsequently found the individual’s guilty plea to be invalid.

In 2016, UBS was notified by the Belgian investigating judge that it is under formal investigation (“inculpé”) regarding the laundering of proceeds of tax fraud, of banking and financial solicitation by unauthorized persons, and of serious tax fraud.

UBS has, and reportedly numerous other financial institutions have, received inquiries from authorities concerning accounts relating to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and other constituent soccer associations and related persons and entities. UBS is cooperating with authorities in these inquiries.

Our balance sheet at 30 June 2018 reflected provisions with respect to matters described in this item 1 in an amount that UBS believes to be appropriate under the applicable accounting standard. As in the case of other matters for which we have established provisions, the future outflow of resources in respect of such matters cannot be determined with certainty based on currently available information and accordingly may ultimately prove to be substantially greater (or may be less) than the provision that we have recognized.

2. Claims related to sales of residential mortgage-backed securities and mortgages

From 2002 through 2007, prior to the crisis in the US residential loan market, UBS was a substantial issuer and underwriter of US residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and was a purchaser and seller of US residential mortgages. A subsidiary of UBS, UBS Real Estate Securities Inc. (UBS RESI), acquired pools of residential mortgage loans from originators and (through an affiliate) deposited them into securitization trusts. In this manner, from 2004 through 2007, UBS RESI sponsored approximately USD 80 billion in RMBS, based on the original principal balances of the securities issued.

UBS RESI also sold pools of loans acquired from originators to third-party purchasers. These whole loan sales during the period 2004 through 2007 totaled approximately USD 19 billion in original principal balance.

UBS was not a significant originator of US residential loans. A branch of UBS originated approximately USD 1.5 billion in US residential mortgage loans during the period in which it was active from 2006 to 2008, and securitized less than half of these loans.

Lawsuits related to contractual representations and warranties concerning mortgages and RMBS: When UBS acted as an RMBS sponsor or mortgage seller, it generally made certain representations relating to the characteristics of the underlying loans. In the event of a material breach of these representations, UBS was in certain circumstances contractually obligated to repurchase the loans to which the representations related or to indemnify certain parties against losses. In 2012, certain RMBS trusts filed an action (Trustee Suit) in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeking to enforce UBS RESI’s obligation to repurchase loans in the collateral pools for three RMBS securitizations issued and underwritten by UBS with an original principal balance of approximately USD 2 billion. Approximately 9,000 loans were at issue in a bench trial in the SDNY in 2016, following which the court issued an order ruling on numerous legal and factual issues and applying those rulings to 20 exemplar loans. The court further ordered that a lead master be appointed to apply the court’s rulings to the remaining loans. In 2017, UBS and certain holders of the RMBS in the Trustee Suit entered into an agreement under which UBS would have paid an aggregate of USD 543 million into the relevant RMBS trusts, plus certain attorneys’ fees. The trustee for the RMBS trusts declined to become a party to the settlement and the agreement with the RMBS holders therefore lapsed. In July 2018, UBS and the trustee entered into an agreement under which UBS will pay USD 850 million to resolve this matter. A significant portion of this amount will be borne by other parties that indemnified UBS. The settlement remains subject to approval by the court and proceedings to determine how the settlement funds will be distributed to RMBS holders. After giving effect to this settlement, UBS considers claims relating to substantially all loan repurchase demands to be resolved, and believes that new demands to repurchase US residential mortgage loans are time-barred under a decision rendered by the New York Court of Appeals.

Mortgage-related regulatory matters: In 2014, UBS received a subpoena from the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York issued pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), which seeks documents and information related to UBS’s RMBS business from 2005 through 2007. In 2015, the Eastern District of New York identified a number of transactions that are the focus of their inquiry, and subsequently provided a revised list of transactions. UBS has provided information in response to this subpoena. UBS has also responded to inquiries from both the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) (who is working in conjunction with the US Attorney’s Office for Connecticut and the DOJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to trading practices in connection with purchases and sales of mortgage-backed securities in the secondary market from 2009 through 2014. UBS is cooperating with the authorities in these matters.

Our balance sheet at 30 June 2018 reflected a provision with respect to matters described in this item 2 in an amount that UBS believes to be appropriate under the applicable accounting standard. As in the case of other matters for which we have established provisions, the future outflow of resources in respect of this matter cannot be determined with certainty based on currently available information and accordingly may ultimately prove to be substantially greater (or may be less) than the provision that we have recognized.

3. Madoff

In relation to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) investment fraud, UBS AG, UBS (Luxembourg) S.A. (now UBS Europe SE, Luxembourg branch) and certain other UBS subsidiaries have been subject to inquiries by a number of regulators, including the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF). Those inquiries concerned two third-party funds established under Luxembourg law, substantially all assets of which were with BMIS, as well as certain funds established in offshore jurisdictions with either direct or indirect exposure to BMIS. These funds faced severe losses, and the Luxembourg funds are in liquidation. The documentation establishing both funds identifies UBS entities in various roles, including custodian, administrator, manager, distributor and promoter, and indicates that UBS employees serve as board members.

In 2009 and 2010, the liquidators of the two Luxembourg funds filed claims against UBS entities, non-UBS entities and certain individuals, including current and former UBS employees, seeking amounts aggregating approximately EUR 2.1 billion, which includes amounts that the funds may be held liable to pay the trustee for the liquidation of BMIS (BMIS Trustee).

A large number of alleged beneficiaries have filed claims against UBS entities (and non-UBS entities) for purported losses relating to the Madoff fraud. The majority of these cases have been filed in Luxembourg, where decisions that the claims in eight test cases were inadmissible have been affirmed by the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, and the Luxembourg Supreme Court has dismissed a further appeal in one of the test cases.

In the US, the BMIS Trustee filed claims against UBS entities, among others, in relation to the two Luxembourg funds and one of the offshore funds. The total amount claimed against all defendants in these actions was not less than USD 2 billion. In 2014, the US Supreme Court rejected the BMIS Trustee’s motion for leave to appeal decisions dismissing all claims except those for the recovery of fraudulent conveyances and preference payments. In 2016, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the remaining claims against the UBS entities. The BMIS Trustee appealed.

4. Puerto Rico

Declines since 2013 in the market prices of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and of closed-end funds (funds) that are sole-managed and co-managed by UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico and distributed by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (UBS PR) have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed damages of USD 2.6 billion, of which claims with aggregate claimed damages of USD 1.6 billion have been resolved through settlements, arbitration or withdrawal of the claim. The claims are filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own the funds or Puerto Rico municipal bonds and / or who used their UBS account assets as collateral for UBS non-purpose loans; customer complaint and arbitration allegations include fraud, misrepresentation and unsuitability of the funds and of the loans. A shareholder derivative action was filed in 2014 against various UBS entities and current and certain former directors of the funds, alleging hundreds of millions of US dollars in losses in the funds. In 2015, defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied.

Defendants’ requests for permission to appeal that ruling were denied by the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. In 2014, a federal class action complaint also was filed against various UBS entities, certain members of UBS PR senior management and the co-manager of certain of the funds, seeking damages for investor losses in the funds during the period from May 2008 through May 2014. In 2016, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. In 2015, a class action was filed in Puerto Rico state court against UBS PR seeking equitable relief in the form of a stay of any effort by UBS PR to collect on non-purpose loans it acquired from UBS Bank USA in December 2013 based on plaintiffs’ allegation that the loans are not valid. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on a forum selection clause in the loan agreements. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case back to the trial court for reconsideration. On reconsideration the trial court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the action.

In 2014, UBS reached a settlement with the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (OCFI) in connection with OCFI’s examination of UBS’s operations from January 2006 through September 2013, pursuant to which UBS is paying up to an aggregate of USD 7.7 million in investor education contributions and restitution.

In 2015, the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced settlements with UBS PR of their separate investigations stemming from the 2013 market events. Without admitting or denying the findings in either matter, UBS PR agreed in the SEC settlement to pay USD 15 million and USD 18.5 million in the FINRA matter. We also understand that the DOJ is conducting a criminal inquiry into the impermissible reinvestment of non-purpose loan proceeds. We are cooperating with the authorities in this inquiry.

In 2011, a purported derivative action was filed on behalf of the Employee Retirement System of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (System) against over 40 defendants, including UBS PR, which was named in connection with its underwriting and consulting services. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated their purported fiduciary duties and contractual obligations in connection with the issuance and underwriting of USD 3 billion of bonds by the System in 2008 and sought damages of over USD 800 million. In 2016, the court granted the System’s request to join the action as a plaintiff, but ordered that plaintiffs must file an amended complaint. In 2017, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Beginning in 2015, and continuing through 2017, certain agencies and public corporations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Commonwealth) defaulted on certain interest payments on Puerto Rico bonds. The funds hold significant amounts of those bonds and the defaults on interest payments have had, and are expected to continue to have, an adverse effect on dividends from the funds. Executive orders of the Governor of Puerto Rico that have diverted funds to pay for essential services instead of debt payments and stayed any action to enforce creditors’ rights on the Puerto Rico bonds continue to be in effect. In 2016, US federal legislation created an oversight board with power to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances and to restructure its debt. The oversight board has imposed a stay on the exercise of creditors’ rights. In 2017, the oversight board placed certain of the bonds into a bankruptcy-like proceeding under the supervision of a Federal District Judge. These events, further defaults, any further legislative action to create a legal means of restructuring Commonwealth obligations or to impose additional oversight on the Commonwealth’s finances, or any restructuring of the Commonwealth’s obligations may increase the number of claims against UBS concerning Puerto Rico securities, as well as potential damages sought.

Our balance sheet at 30 June 2018 reflected provisions with respect to matters described in this item 4 in amounts that UBS believes to be appropriate under the applicable accounting standard. As in the case of other matters for which we have established provisions, the future outflow of resources in respect of such matters cannot be determined with certainty based on currently available information and accordingly may ultimately prove to be substantially greater (or may be less) than the provisions that we have recognized.

5. Foreign exchange, LIBOR and benchmark rates, and other trading practices

Foreign exchange-related regulatory matters: Following an initial media report in 2013 of widespread irregularities in the foreign exchange markets, UBS immediately commenced an internal review of its foreign exchange business, which includes our precious metals and related structured products businesses. Numerous authorities commenced investigations concerning possible manipulation of foreign exchange markets and precious metals prices. In 2014 and 2015, UBS reached settlements with the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in connection with their foreign exchange investigations, FINMA issued an order concluding its formal proceedings relating to UBS’s foreign exchange and precious metals businesses, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) and the Connecticut Department of Banking issued a Cease and Desist Order and assessed monetary penalties against UBS AG. In addition, the DOJ’s Criminal Division (Criminal Division) terminated the 2012 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with UBS AG related to UBS’s submissions of benchmark interest rates and UBS AG pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, paid a fine and is subject to probation through January 2020. UBS has ongoing obligations to cooperate with these authorities and to undertake certain remediation measures. UBS has also been granted conditional immunity by the Antitrust Division of the DOJ (Antitrust Division) and by authorities in other jurisdictions in connection with potential competition law violations relating to foreign exchange and precious metals businesses. Investigations relating to foreign exchange and precious metals matters by certain authorities remain ongoing notwithstanding these resolutions.

Foreign exchange-related civil litigation: Putative class actions have been filed since 2013 in US federal courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other banks on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks. They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. In 2015, additional putative class actions were filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons who entered into or held any foreign exchange futures contracts and options on foreign exchange futures contracts since 2003. The complaints assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the US antitrust laws. In 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of both putative classes of persons covered by the US federal court class actions described above. UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve all of these US federal court class actions. The settlement agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the court and is subject to final court approval, requires, among other things, that UBS pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the settlement classes.

In 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of persons and businesses in the US who directly purchased foreign currency from the defendants and their co-conspirators for their own end use. In March 2017, the court granted UBS’s (and the other banks’) motions to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2017. In March 2018, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

In 2016, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of persons and entities who had indirectly purchased foreign exchange instruments from a defendant or co-conspirator in the US. The complaint asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws. In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their complaint.

In 2017, two new putative class actions were filed in federal court in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of different proposed classes of indirect purchasers of currency, and a consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017. In March 2018, the court dismissed the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint.

Putative class actions are also pending against UBS and other banks in federal court in New York and other jurisdictions on behalf of putative classes of persons who had bought or sold physical precious metals and various precious metal products and derivatives. The complaints in these lawsuits assert claims under the antitrust laws and the CEA, and other claims. In 2016, the court in New York granted UBS’s motions to dismiss the putative class actions relating to gold and silver. Plaintiffs in those cases sought to amend their complaints to add new allegations about UBS, which the court granted. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints in 2017, and motions to dismiss the amended complaints are pending. In March 2017, the court in New York granted UBS’s motion to dismiss the platinum and palladium action. In May 2017, plaintiffs in the platinum and palladium action filed an amended complaint that did not allege claims against UBS.

LIBOR and other benchmark-related regulatory matters: Numerous government agencies, including the SEC, the CFTC, the DOJ, the FCA, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), FINMA, various state attorneys general in the US and competition authorities in various jurisdictions, have conducted or are continuing to conduct investigations regarding potential improper attempts by UBS, among others, to manipulate LIBOR and other benchmark rates at certain times. In 2012, UBS reached settlements relating to benchmark interest rates with the FSA, the CFTC and the Criminal Division of the DOJ, and FINMA issued an order in its proceedings with respect to UBS relating to benchmark interest rates. In addition, UBS entered into settlements with the European Commission (EC) and with the Swiss Competition Commission (WEKO) regarding its investigation of bid-ask spreads in connection with Swiss franc interest rate derivatives. UBS has ongoing obligations to cooperate with the authorities with whom we have reached resolutions and to undertake certain remediation measures with respect to benchmark interest rate submissions. UBS has been granted conditional leniency or conditional immunity from authorities in certain jurisdictions, including the Antitrust Division of the DOJ and WEKO, in connection with potential antitrust or competition law violations related to certain rates. However, UBS has not reached a final settlement with WEKO as the Secretariat of WEKO has asserted that UBS does not qualify for full immunity. Investigations by certain governmental authorities remain ongoing notwithstanding these resolutions.

LIBOR and other benchmark-related civil litigation: A number of putative class actions and other actions are pending in the federal courts in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of parties who transacted in certain interest rate benchmark-based derivatives. Also pending in the US and in other jurisdictions are a number of other actions asserting losses related to various products whose interest rates were linked to LIBOR and other benchmarks, including adjustable rate mortgages, preferred and debt securities, bonds pledged as collateral, loans, depository accounts, investments and other interest-bearing instruments. The complaints allege manipulation, through various means, of certain benchmark interest rates, including USD LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, Yen LIBOR, EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR, USD and SGD SIBOR and SOR, Australian BBSW and USD ISDAFIX, and seek unspecified compensatory and other damages under varying legal theories.

Other benchmark class actions and ISDAFIX class action in the US: In 2014, the court in one of the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuits dismissed certain of the plaintiff’s claims, including federal antitrust claims for lack of standing. In 2015, this court dismissed the plaintiff’s federal racketeering claims on the same basis and affirmed its previous dismissal of the plaintiff’s antitrust claims against UBS. In 2017, this court also dismissed the other Yen LIBOR / Euroyen TIBOR action in its entirety on standing grounds, as did the court in the CHF LIBOR action. Also in 2017, the courts in the EURIBOR and the SIBOR / SOR lawsuits dismissed the cases as to UBS and certain other foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs in the CHF LIBOR and SIBOR / SOR actions have filed amended complaints following the dismissals, which UBS and other defendants have moved to dismiss. UBS and other defendants have also moved to dismiss the GBP LIBOR and Australian BBSW actions. In 2017, UBS agreed to pay USD 14 million to resolve putative class actions filed in federal court in New York and New Jersey against UBS and other financial institutions on behalf of parties who entered into interest rate derivative transactions linked to ISDAFIX. The final settlement was approved in June 2018.

Government bonds: Putative class actions have been filed since 2015 in US federal courts against UBS and other banks on behalf of persons who participated in markets for US Treasury securities since 2007. A consolidated complaint was filed in 2017 in the SDNY alleging that the banks colluded with respect to, and manipulated prices of, US Treasury securities sold at auction and in the secondary market and asserting claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint are pending.

Following filing of these complaints, UBS and reportedly other banks are responding to investigations and requests for information from various authorities regarding US Treasury securities and other government bond trading practices. As a result of its review to date, UBS has taken appropriate action.

With respect to additional matters and jurisdictions not encompassed by the settlements and orders referred to above, our balance sheet at 30 June 2018 reflected a provision in an amount that UBS believes to be appropriate under the applicable accounting standard. As in the case of other matters for which we have established provisions, the future outflow of resources in respect of such matters cannot be determined with certainty based on currently available information and accordingly may ultimately prove to be substantially greater (or may be less) than the provision that we have recognized.

6. Swiss retrocessions

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland ruled in 2012, in a test case against UBS, that distribution fees paid to a firm for distributing third-party and intra-group investment funds and structured products must be disclosed and surrendered to clients who have entered into a discretionary mandate agreement with the firm, absent a valid waiver.

FINMA has issued a supervisory note to all Swiss banks in response to the Supreme Court decision. UBS has met the FINMA requirements and has notified all potentially affected clients.

The Supreme Court decision has resulted, and may continue to result, in a number of client requests for UBS to disclose and potentially surrender retrocessions. Client requests are assessed on a case-by-case basis. Considerations taken into account when assessing these cases include, among other things, the existence of a discretionary mandate and whether or not the client documentation contained a valid waiver with respect to distribution fees.

Our balance sheet at 30 June 2018 reflected a provision with respect to matters described in this item 6 in an amount that UBS believes to be appropriate under the applicable accounting standard. The ultimate exposure will depend on client requests and the resolution thereof, factors that are difficult to predict and assess. Hence, as in the case of other matters for which we have established provisions, the future outflow of resources in respect of such matters cannot be determined with certainty based on currently available information and accordingly may ultimately prove to be substantially greater (or may be less) than the provision that we have recognized.

7. Investigation of UBS’s role in initial public offerings in Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has been conducting investigations into UBS’s role as a sponsor of certain initial public offerings listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The SFC has previously indicated that it intended to take enforcement action against UBS and certain employees in relation to certain of these offerings. In March 2018, the SFC issued a decision notice in relation to one of the offerings under investigation. The notice provides for a fine of HKD 119 million and a suspension of UBS Securities Hong Kong Limited’s ability to act as a sponsor for Hong Kong-listed initial public offerings for 18 months. UBS has appealed the decision.