Litigation, regulatory and similar matters

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Disclosure Of Litigation Regulatory And Similar Matters [Line Items]

Disclosure Of Contingent Liabilities Explanatory

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. Developments relating to a matter that occur after the relevant reporting period, but prior to the issuance of financial statements, which affect management’s assessment of the provision for such matter (because, for example, the developments provide evidence of conditions that existed at the end of the reporting period), are adjusting events after the reporting period under IAS 10 and must be recognized in the financial statements for the reporting period.

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 16a 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 claimsand 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 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 in Corporate Center1
USD million	Global WealthManage-ment	Personal & Corporate Banking	AssetManage-ment	Investment Bank	Corporate Center	UBS
Balance as of 31 December 2018	1,003	117	0	269	1,438	2,827
Balance as of 31 March 2019	943	114	0	201	1,419	2,677
Increase in provisions recognized in the income statement	39	0	0	0	0	40
Release of provisions recognized in the income statement	(19)	0	0	(1)	(15)	(35)
Provisions used in conformity with designated purpose	(113)	(1)	0	0	(70)	(184)
Foreign currency translation / unwind of discount	7	2	0	2	0	11
Balance as of 30 June 2019	858	114	0	202	1,334	2,509
1 Provisions, if any, for the matters described in this disclosure are recorded in Global Wealth Management (item 3 and item 4) and Corporate Center (item 2). Provisions, if any, for the matters described in items 1 and 6 of this disclosure are allocated between Global Wealth Management and Personal & Corporate Banking, and provisions, if any, for the matters described in this disclosure in item 5 are allocated between the Investment Bank and Corporate Center.

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. On 30 July 2018, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court granted UBS’s appeal by holding the French administrative assistance request inadmissible. The FTA filed a final appeal with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for 26 July 2019, at which UBS expects that it will announce a decision.

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 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.

A trial in the court of first instance took place from 8 October 2018 until 15 November 2018. On 20 February 2019, the court announced a verdict finding UBS AG guilty of illicitly soliciting clients on French territory and aggravated laundering of the proceeds of tax fraud, and UBS France S.A. guilty of aiding and abetting unlawful solicitation and laundering the proceeds of tax fraud. The court imposed fines aggregating EUR 3.7 billion on UBS AG and UBS France S.A. and awarded EUR 800 million of civil damages to the French state. UBS has appealed the decision. Under French law, the judgment is suspended while the appeal is pending. The Court of Appeal will retry the case de novo as to both the law and the facts, and the fines and penalties can be greater than or less than those imposed by the court of first instance. A subsequent appeal to the Cour de Cassation, France’s highest court, is possible with respect to questions of law.

UBS believes that based on both the law and the facts the judgment of the court of first instance should be reversed. UBS believes it followed its obligations under Swiss and French law as well as the European Savings Tax Directive. Even assuming liability, which it contests, UBS believes the penalties and damage amounts awarded greatly exceed the amounts that could be supported by the law and the facts. In particular, UBS believes the court incorrectly based the penalty on the total regularized assets rather than on any unpaid taxes on those assets for which a fraud has been characterized and further incorrectly awarded damages based on costs that were not proven by the civil party. Notwithstanding that UBS believes it should be acquitted, our balance sheet at 30 June 2019 reflected provisions with respect to this matter in an amount of USD 516 million. The wide range of possible outcomes in this case contributes to a high degree of estimation uncertainty. The provision reflected on our balance sheet at 30 June 2019 reflects our best estimate of possible financial implications, although it is reasonably possible that actual penalties and civil damages could exceed the provision amount.

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. In 2018, tax authorities and a prosecutor’s office in Italy asserted that UBS is potentially liable for taxes and penalties as a result of its activities in Italy from 2012 to 2017. In June 2019, UBS entered into a settlement agreement with the Italian tax authorities under which it paid EUR 101 million to resolve the claims asserted by the authority related to UBS AG's potential permanent establishment in Italy.

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 2019 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 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York 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. 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 court approval 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: Since 2014, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York has sought information from UBS pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), related to UBS’s RMBS business from 2005 through 2007. On 8 November 2018, the DOJ filed a civil complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint seeks unspecified civil monetary penalties under FIRREA related to UBS’s issuance, underwriting and sale of 40 RMBS transactions in 2006 and 2007. UBS moved to dismiss the civil complaint on 6 February 2019.

Our balance sheet at 30 June 2019 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. 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 totaling 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 approximately USD 125 million of payments alleged to be fraudulent conveyances and preference payments. In 2016, the bankruptcy court dismissed these claims against the UBS entities. The BMIS Trustee appealed. In February 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the BMIS Trustee’s remaining claims. The defendants, including UBS, are preparing a petition to the US Supreme Court requesting that it review the Court of Appeals’ decision. The bankruptcy proceedings have been stayed pending a decision with respect to that petition.

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 3.2 billion, of which claims with aggregate claimed damages of USD 2.2 billion have been resolved through settlements, arbitration or withdrawal of the claim. The claims have been 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 and a request for permission to appeal that ruling was denied by 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. Following denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the case was dismissed in October 2018.

In 2014 and 2015, UBS entered into settlements with the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in relation to their examinations of UBS’s operations.

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. 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 certain 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 or 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.

In May 2019 the oversight board filed complaints in Puerto Rico federal district court bringing claims against financial, legal and accounting firms that had participated in Puerto Rico municipal bond offerings, including UBS, seeking a return of underwriting and swap fees paid in connection with those offerings.UBS estimates that it received approximately USD 125 million in fees in the relevant offerings.

Our balance sheet at 30 June 2019 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: Beginning in 2013, 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 2015, the DOJ’s Criminal Division terminated the 2012 non-prosecution agreement 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. In 2019 the European Commission announced two decisions with respect to foreign exchange trading. UBS was granted immunity by the European Commission in these matters and therefore was not fined. 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 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 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. UBS has resolved US federal court class actions relating to foreign currency transactions with the defendant banks and persons who transacted in foreign exchange futures contracts and options on such futures under a settlement agreement that provides for UBS to pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the settlement classes. Certain class members have excluded themselves from that settlement and have filed individual actions in US and English courts against UBS and other banks, alleging violations of US and European competition laws and unjust enrichment.

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 alleged 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 2017, two putative class actions were 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, and a consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017. In March 2018, the court dismissed the consolidated complaint. In October 2018, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint.

LIBOR and other benchmark-related regulatory matters: Numerous government agencies, including the SEC, the CFTC, the DOJ, the FCA, the UK Serious Fraud Office, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, 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 UK Financial Services Authority, 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 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. In December 2018, UBS entered into a settlement agreement with the New York and other state attorneys general under which it has paid USD 68 million to resolve claims by the attorneys general related to LIBOR. 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.

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 and Australian BBSW, and seek unspecified compensatory and other damages under varying legal theories.

USD LIBOR class and individual actions in the US: In 2013 and 2015, the district court in the USD LIBOR actions dismissed, in whole or in part, certain plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, federal racketeering claims, CEA claims, and state common law claims. Although the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing antitrust claims, the district court again dismissed antitrust claims against UBS in 2016. Certain plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Second Circuit. Separately, in 2018, the Second Circuit reversed in part the district court’s 2015 decision dismissing certain individual plaintiffs’ claims. UBS entered into an agreement in 2016 with representatives of a class of bondholders to settle their USD LIBOR class action. The agreement has received preliminary court approval and remains subject to final approval. In 2018, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in the USD class actions for claims pending against UBS, and plaintiffs sought permission to appeal that ruling to the Second Circuit. In July 2018, the Second Circuit denied the petition to appeal of the class of USD lenders and in November 2018 denied the petition of the USD exchange class. In January 2019, a putative class action was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of US residents who, since 1 February 2014, directly transacted with a defendant bank in USD LIBOR instruments. The complaint asserts antitrust and unjust enrichment claims.

Other benchmark class actions in the US: In 2014, the court in one of the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuits dismissed certain of the plaintiffs’ claims, including a federal antitrust claim, for lack of standing. In 2015, this court dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal racketeering claims on the same basis and affirmed its previous dismissal of the plaintiffs’ 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 lawsuit dismissed the cases as to UBS and certain other foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. In October 2018, the court in the SIBOR / SOR action dismissed all but one of plaintiffs’ claims against UBS. 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. In November 2018, the court in the BBSW lawsuit dismissed the case as to UBS and certain other foreign defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. Following that dismissal, plaintiffs in the BBSW action filed an amended complaint in April 2019, which UBS and other defendants named in the amended complaint have moved to dismiss. UBS and other defendants also moved to dismiss the GBP LIBOR action in December 2016, but that motion was denied as to UBS in December 2018. UBS moved for reconsideration of that decision in January 2019.

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 US District Court for the Southern District of New York 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.

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 2019 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 2019 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.