Litigation, regulatory and similar matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

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 to the Group 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; 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 18a 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 beyond what has been identified as a consequence of the acquisition of

Credit Suisse as set out below. Doing so would require UBS 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 UBS therefore

cannot provide a numerical estimate of the future losses that could arise from litigation, regulatory and similar matters,

UBS believes 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. A guilty plea to,

or conviction of, a crime could have material consequences for UBS. Resolution of regulatory proceedings may require

UBS 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 UBS’s 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 capital requirements. Information concerning our capital requirements and the calculation of operational

risk for this purpose is included in the “Capital, liquidity and funding, and balance sheet” section of this report.

Matters related to Credit Suisse entities are separately described herein. The amounts shown in the table below reflect

the provisions recorded under IFRS Accounting Standards accounting principles. In connection with the acquisition of

Credit Suisse, UBS Group AG additionally has reflected in its purchase accounting under IFRS 3 a further valuation

adjustment of USD

3.8

bn reflecting an updated estimate of outflows relating to contingent liabilities for all present

obligations included in the scope of the acquisition at fair value upon closing, even if it is not probable that they will

result in an outflow of resources, significantly decreasing the recognition threshold for litigation liabilities beyond those

that generally apply under IFRS Accounting Standards and US GAAP. 

Provisions used in conformity with designated purpose include USD

1.4

bn recorded in Non-core and Legacy from the

settlement of the action by the DOJ under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989

related to UBS’s issuance, underwriting and sale of US residential mortgage-backed securities in 2006 and 2007.

Provisions for litigation, regulatory and similar matters by business division and in Group Items

1

USD m

Global Wealth

Management

Personal &

Corporate

Banking 

Asset

Management

Investment

Bank

Non-core

and Legacy

2

Group Items

2

Total 2023

Balance at the beginning of the year

1,182

159

8

308

771

158

2,586

Provisions recognized upon the acquisition of the Credit Suisse Group

3

87

1

0

2

2,789

4

2,883

Increase in provisions recognized in the income statement

133

1

8

81

684

2

909

Release of provisions recognized in the income statement

(8)

(10)

0

(3)

(48)

(29)

(97)

Provisions used in conformity with designated purpose

(199)

0

(1)

(106)

(2,036)

(1)

(2,344)

Foreign currency translation and other movements

41

6

(1)

12

26

0

85

Balance at the end of the year

1,235

157

15

294

2,186

134

4,020

of which: Credit Suisse

3

15

1

2

8

2,182

2

2,210

1 Provisions, if any, for the matters described in items A2, B8 and B10 of this Note are recorded in Global Wealth Management; provisions, if any, for the matters described in items B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9,

B11 and B12 of this Note are recorded in Non-core and Legacy; provisions, if any, for the matters described in items B13 and B14 of this Note are recorded in Group Items. Provisions, if any, for the matters described

in items A1 and A4 of this Note are allocated between Global Wealth Management and Personal & Corporate Banking; and provisions, if any, for the matters described in item A3 are allocated between the Investment

Bank and Group Items. 2 Starting with the third quarter of 2023, Non-core and Legacy represents a separate reportable segment and Group Functions has been renamed Group Items. Prior periods have been

revised to reflect these changes. 3 Refer to Note 2 for more information about the acquisition of the Credit Suisse Group.

A. Litigation, regulatory and similar matters involving UBS AG and subsidiaries

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.

Since 2013, UBS (France) S.A., UBS AG and certain former employees have been under investigation in France in relation

to UBS’s cross-border business with French clients. In connection with this investigation, the investigating judges ordered

UBS AG to provide bail (“

caution

”) of EUR

1.1

bn.

In 2019, the court of first instance returned a verdict finding UBS AG guilty of unlawful solicitation of 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 of laundering the proceeds of tax fraud. The court imposed fines aggregating EUR

3.7

bn on

UBS AG and UBS (France) S.A. and awarded EUR

800

m of civil damages to the French state. A trial in the Paris Court of

Appeal took place in March 2021. In December 2021, the Court of Appeal found UBS AG guilty of unlawful solicitation

and aggravated laundering of the proceeds of tax fraud. The court ordered a fine of EUR

3.75

m, the confiscation of EUR

1

bn, and awarded civil damages to the French state of EUR

800

m. UBS appealed the decision to the French Supreme

Court. The Supreme Court rendered its judgment on 15 November 2023. It upheld the Court of Appeal‘s decision

regarding unlawful solicitation and aggravated laundering of the proceeds of tax fraud, but overturned the confiscation

of EUR

1

bn, the penalty of EUR

3.75

m and the EUR

800

m of civil damages awarded to the French state. The case has

been remanded to the Court of Appeal for a retrial regarding these overturned elements. The French state has reimbursed

the EUR

800

m of civil damages to UBS AG.

Our balance sheet at 31 December 2023 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.

2. 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

bn,

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

bn.

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

m of payments alleged to be fraudulent conveyances and

preference payments. In 2016, the bankruptcy court dismissed these claims against the UBS entities. In 2019, the Court

of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the BMIS Trustee’s remaining claims, and the US Supreme Court subsequently denied

a petition seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The case has been remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for

further proceedings.

3. 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. As a result of these

investigations, UBS entered into resolutions with Swiss, US and United Kingdom regulators and the European

Commission. UBS was 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.

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

m 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. UBS and the other banks have resolved those individual matters.

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 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In March 2023, the court granted

defendants’ summary judgment motion, dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have appealed.

LIBOR and other benchmark-related regulatory matters:

 Numerous government agencies conducted investigations

regarding potential improper attempts by UBS, among others, to manipulate LIBOR and other benchmark rates at certain

times. UBS reached settlements or otherwise concluded investigations relating to benchmark interest rates with the

investigating authorities. UBS was granted conditional leniency or conditional immunity from authorities in certain

jurisdictions, including the Antitrust Division of the DOJ and the Swiss Competition Commission (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 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, Commodity Exchange Act claims, and

state common law claims, and again dismissed the antitrust claims in 2016 following an appeal. In 2021, the Second

Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal in part and reversed in part and remanded to the district court for further

proceedings. The Second Circuit, among other things, held that there was personal jurisdiction over UBS and other foreign

defendants. Separately, in 2018, the Second Circuit reversed in part the district court’s 2015 decision dismissing certain

individual plaintiffs’ claims and certain of these actions are now proceeding. 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. The Second Circuit denied the petition to appeal. In 2020, an individual action

was filed in the Northern District of California against UBS and numerous other banks alleging that the defendants

conspired to fix the interest rate used as the basis for loans to consumers by jointly setting the USD LIBOR rate and

monopolized the market for LIBOR-based consumer loans and credit cards. In September 2022, the court granted

defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, while allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2022, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended

complaint. In October 2023, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. In January 2024, plaintiffs

appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants filed their response to the appeal in March

2024.

Other benchmark class actions in the US: 

Yen LIBOR / Euroyen TIBOR

– In 2017, the court dismissed one Yen LIBOR / Euroyen TIBOR action in its entirety on

standing grounds. In 2020, the appeals court reversed the dismissal and, subsequently, plaintiffs in that action filed an

amended complaint focused on Yen LIBOR. In 2022, the court granted UBS’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed

the case against UBS. The dismissal of the case against UBS could be appealed following the disposition of the case

against the remaining defendant in the district court.

CHF LIBOR

 – In 2017, the court dismissed the CHF LIBOR action on standing grounds and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs

filed an amended complaint, and the court granted a renewed motion to dismiss in 2019. Plaintiffs appealed. In 2021,

the Second Circuit granted the parties’ joint motion to vacate the dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in November 2022 and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint

in January 2023.

EURIBOR

 – In 2017, the court in the EURIBOR lawsuit dismissed the case as to UBS and certain other foreign defendants

for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have appealed. 

GBP LIBOR

 – The court dismissed the GBP LIBOR action in 2019. Plaintiffs have appealed. 

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 were

granted in 2021. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss later in 2021. In March 2022,

the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint, and in February 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the

district court’s dismissal. Similar class actions have been filed concerning European government bonds and other

government bonds.

In 2021, the European Commission issued a decision finding that UBS and six other banks breached European Union

antitrust rules in 2007–2011 relating to European government bonds. The European Commission fined UBS EUR

172

m.

UBS is appealing the amount of the fine.

With respect to additional matters and jurisdictions not encompassed by the settlements and orders referred to above,

our balance sheet at 31 December 2023 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.

4. 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 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 continues 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 31 December 2023 reflected a provision with respect to matters described in this item 4 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.

B. Litigation regulatory and similar matters involving Credit Suisse entities

1. Mortgage-related matters

Government and regulatory related matters

:

DOJ RMBS settlement

 – In January 2017, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

(CSS LLC) and its current and former US subsidiaries and US affiliates reached a settlement with the US Department of

Justice (DOJ) related to its legacy Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) business, a business conducted through

2007. The settlement resolved potential civil claims by the DOJ related to certain of those Credit Suisse entities’ packaging,

marketing, structuring, arrangement, underwriting, issuance and sale of RMBS. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement

a civil monetary penalty was paid to the DOJ in January 2017. The settlement also required the Credit Suisse entities to

provide certain levels of consumer relief measures, including affordable housing payments and loan forgiveness, and the

DOJ and Credit Suisse agreed to the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee the completion of the consumer

relief requirements of the settlement. Credit Suisse continues to evaluate its approach toward satisfying its remaining

consumer relief obligations, and Credit Suisse currently anticipates that it will take much longer than the five-year period

provided in the settlement to satisfy in full its obligations in respect of these consumer relief measures, subject to risk

appetite and market conditions. Credit Suisse expects to incur costs in relation to satisfying those obligations. The amount

of consumer relief Credit Suisse must provide also increases after 2021 pursuant to the original settlement by

5

% per

annum of the outstanding amount due until these obligations are settled. The monitor publishes reports periodically on

these consumer relief matters.

Civil litigation: Repurchase litigations

 – CSS LLC and/or certain of its affiliates have also been named as defendants in

various civil litigation matters related to their roles as issuer, sponsor, depositor, underwriter and/or servicer of RMBS

transactions. These cases currently include repurchase actions by RMBS trusts and/or trustees, in which plaintiffs generally

allege breached representations and warranties in respect of mortgage loans and failure to repurchase such mortgage

loans as required under the applicable agreements. The amounts disclosed below do not reflect actual realized plaintiff

losses to date or anticipated future litigation exposure. Unless otherwise stated, these amounts reflect the original unpaid

principal balance amounts as alleged in these actions and do not include any reduction in principal amounts since

issuance.

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (DLJ) is a defendant in New York state court in: (i) one action brought by Asset Backed

Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-HE7, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD

374

m in an amended complaint filed in August 2019; in January 2020, DLJ filed a motion to dismiss, which the court

granted in part and denied in part in December 2023, dismissing with prejudice all notice-based claims; in February 2024,

the parties filed notices of appeal; (ii) one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust, Series 2006-8, in which plaintiff

alleges damages of not less than USD

436

m; (iii) one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-1, in which plaintiff

alleges damages of not less than USD

420

m; in December 2018, the court denied DLJ’s motion for partial summary

judgment in this action, which was affirmed on appeal; in March 2022, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed

the decision and ordered that DLJ’s motion for partial summary judgment be granted; a non-jury trial in the action was

held between January and February 2023, and a decision is pending; (iv) one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust

2007-2, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD

495

m; and (v) one action brought by CSMC Asset-Backed

Trust 2007-NC1, in which no damages amount is alleged. These actions are at various procedural stages. 

DLJ was also a defendant in one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust Series 2007-3, in which plaintiff alleged

damages of not less than USD

206

m. In March 2022, DLJ and the plaintiff executed an agreement to settle this action.

In November 2023, the Minnesota state court approved the settlement through a trust instruction proceeding brought

by the trustee of the plaintiff trust. The New York state court dismissed the underlying action with prejudice in January

2024.

2. Tax and securities law matters

In May 2014, Credit Suisse AG entered into settlement agreements with several US regulators regarding its US cross-

border matters. As part of the agreements, Credit Suisse AG, among other things, engaged an independent corporate

monitor that reports to the New York State Department of Financial Services. As of July 2018, the monitor concluded

both his review and his assignment. Credit Suisse AG continues to report to and cooperate with US authorities in

accordance with Credit Suisse AG’s obligations under the agreements, including by conducting a review of cross-border

services provided by Credit Suisse’s Switzerland-based Israel Desk. Most recently, Credit Suisse AG has provided

information to US authorities regarding potentially undeclared US assets held by clients at Credit Suisse AG since the May

2014 plea. Credit Suisse AG continues to cooperate with the authorities. In March 2023, the US Senate Finance

Committee issued a report criticizing Credit Suisse AG’s history regarding US tax compliance. The report called on the

DOJ to investigate Credit Suisse AG’s compliance with the 2014 plea.

In February 2021, a qui tam complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that Credit Suisse AG had

violated the False Claims Act by failing to disclose all US accounts at the time of the 2014 plea, which allegedly allowed

Credit Suisse AG to pay a criminal fine in 2014 that was purportedly lower than it should have been. The DOJ moved to

dismiss the case, and the Court summarily dismissed the suit. The case is now on appeal with the US Federal Court of

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

3. Rates-related matters

Regulatory matters

: Regulatory authorities in a number of jurisdictions, including the US, UK, EU and Switzerland, have

for an extended period of time been conducting investigations into the setting of LIBOR and other reference rates with

respect to a number of currencies, as well as the pricing of certain related derivatives. These ongoing investigations have

included information requests from regulators regarding LIBOR-setting practices and reviews of the activities of various

financial institutions, including Credit Suisse Group AG, which was a member of three LIBOR rate-setting panels (US

Dollar LIBOR, Swiss Franc LIBOR and Euro LIBOR). Credit Suisse is cooperating fully with these investigations.

Regulatory authorities in a number of jurisdictions, including WEKO, the European Commission (Commission), the South

African Competition Commission and the Brazilian Competition Authority have been conducting investigations into the

trading activities, information sharing and the setting of benchmark rates in the foreign exchange (including electronic

trading) markets. Credit Suisse continues to cooperate with ongoing investigations.

Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (CSSEL) received a Statement of

Objections and a Supplemental Statement of Objections from the Commission in July 2018 and March 2021, respectively,

alleging that Credit Suisse entities engaged in anticompetitive practices in connection with their foreign exchange trading

business. In December 2021, the Commission issued a formal decision imposing a fine of EUR

83.3

m. In February 2022,

Credit Suisse appealed this decision to the EU General Court.

The reference rates investigations have also included information requests from regulators concerning supranational, sub-

sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds and commodities markets. Credit Suisse Group AG and CSSEL received a Statement

of Objections from the Commission in December 2018, alleging that Credit Suisse entities engaged in anticompetitive

practices in connection with their SSA bonds trading business. In April 2021, the Commission issued a formal decision

imposing a fine of EUR

11.9

m. In July 2021, Credit Suisse appealed this decision to the EU General Court.

Civil litigation:

USD LIBOR litigation –

Beginning in 2011, certain Credit Suisse entities were named in various putative class and individual

lawsuits filed in the US, alleging banks on the US dollar LIBOR panel manipulated US dollar LIBOR to benefit their

reputation and increase profits. All remaining matters have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into a multi-district

litigation in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

In a series of rulings between 2013 and 2019 on motions to dismiss, the SDNY (i) narrowed the claims against the Credit

Suisse entities and the other defendants (dismissing antitrust, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

Commodity Exchange Act, and state law claims), (ii) narrowed the set of plaintiffs who may bring claims, and (iii)

narrowed the set of defendants in the LIBOR actions (including the dismissal of several Credit Suisse entities from various

cases on personal jurisdiction and statute of limitation grounds). After a number of putative class and individual plaintiffs

appealed the dismissal of their antitrust claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second

Circuit), in December 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision and

remanded the case to the SDNY.

Separately, in May 2017, the plaintiffs in three putative class actions moved for class certification. In February 2018, the

SDNY denied certification in two of the actions and granted certification over a single antitrust claim in an action brought

by over-the-counter purchasers of LIBOR-linked derivatives.

USD ICE LIBOR litigation

 – In August 2020, members of the ICE LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG and

certain of its affiliates, were named in a civil action in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging

that panel banks manipulated ICE LIBOR to profit from variable interest loans and credit cards. In December 2021, the

court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions to enjoin panel banks from continuing to set

LIBOR or automatically setting the benchmark to zero each day, and in September 2022, the court granted defendants’

motions to dismiss. In October 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In November 2022, defendants filed a motion

to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2023, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice without

leave to amend. Plaintiffs have appealed.

CHF LIBOR litigation

 – In February 2015, various banks that served on the Swiss franc LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse

Group AG, were named in a civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of Swiss franc

LIBOR to benefit defendants’ trading positions. After defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

was granted and plaintiffs successfully appealed, in July 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims.

In February and September 2023, respectively, the court entered orders granting preliminary and final approval to the

agreement to settle all claims.

Foreign exchange litigation –

 Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates as well as other financial institutions have been named

in civil lawsuits relating to the alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates.

Credit Suisse AG, together with other financial institutions, was named in a consolidated putative class action in Israel,

which made allegations similar to the consolidated class action. In April 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement

to settle all claims. The settlement remains subject to court approval.

Treasury markets litigation

 – CSS LLC, along with over 20 other primary dealers of US treasury securities, was named in

a number of putative civil class action complaints in the US relating to the US treasury markets. These complaints generally

alleged that the defendants colluded to manipulate US treasury auctions, as well as the pricing of US treasury securities

in the when-issued market, with impacts upon related futures and options, and that certain of the defendants participated

in a group boycott to prevent the emergence of anonymous all-to-all trading in the secondary market for treasury

securities. In March 2022, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims against

the defendants, and in February 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

SSA bonds litigation

 – Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with other financial institutions, were

named in two Canadian putative class actions, which allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices of SSA bonds sold

to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. One putative class action was dismissed against Credit Suisse

in February 2020. In October 2022, in the second action, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. The

settlement remains subject to court approval.

Credit default swap auction litigation –

In June 2021, Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other banks and

entities, were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of New Mexico

alleging manipulation of credit default swap (CDS) final auction prices. In April 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

In June 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. In November 2023, defendants

filed a motion to enforce the previous CDS settlement with the SDNY. In January 2024, the SDNY ruled that, to the extent

claims in the New Mexico action arise from conduct prior to 30 June 2014, those claims are barred by the SDNY

settlement. In February 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the SDNY decision.

4. OTC trading cases

Interest rate swaps litigation:

 Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions, have been

named in a consolidated putative civil class action complaint and complaints filed by individual plaintiffs relating to interest

rate swaps, alleging that dealer defendants conspired with trading platforms to prevent the development of interest rate

swap exchanges. The individual lawsuits were brought by TeraExchange LLC, a swap execution facility, and affiliates;

Javelin Capital Markets LLC, a swap execution facility, and an affiliate; and trueEX LLC, a swap execution facility, which

claim to have suffered lost profits as a result of defendants’ alleged conspiracy. All interest rate swap actions have been

consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the SDNY.

Defendants moved to dismiss the putative class and individual actions, and the SDNY granted in part and denied in part

these motions.

In February 2019, class plaintiffs in the consolidated multi-district litigation filed a motion for class certification. In March

2019, class plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint. In January 2022, Credit Suisse entered

into an agreement to settle all class action claims. The settlement remains subject to court approval. In December 2023,

the SDNY denied the motion for class certification. In January 2024, class plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to appeal the

denial of class certification.

Credit default swaps litigation

: In June 2017, Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions,

were named in a civil action filed in the SDNY by Tera Group, Inc. and related entities (Tera), alleging violations of antitrust

law in connection with the allegation that CDS dealers conspired to block Tera’s electronic CDS trading platform from

successfully entering the market. In July 2019, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

In January 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In April 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In August

2023, the court granted the motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed.

Stock loan litigation

: Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, were

originally named in a number of civil lawsuits in the SDNY, certain of which are brought by class action plaintiffs alleging

that the defendants conspired to keep stock-loan trading in an over-the-counter market and collectively boycotted certain

trading platforms that sought to enter the market, and certain of which are brought by trading platforms that sought to

enter the market alleging that the defendants collectively boycotted the platforms. In January 2022, Credit Suisse entered

into an agreement to settle all class action claims. In February 2022, the court entered an order granting preliminary

approval to the agreement to settle all class action claims. The settlement remains subject to final court approval. 

In October 2021, in a consolidated civil litigation brought in the SDNY by entities that developed a trading platform for

stock loans that sought to enter the market, alleging that the defendants collectively boycotted the platform, the court

granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. In October 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In March 2023, the Second

Circuit affirmed the decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Odd-lot corporate bond litigation:

In April 2020, CSS LLC and other financial institutions were named in a putative class

action complaint filed in the SDNY, alleging a conspiracy among the financial institutions to boycott electronic trading

platforms and fix prices in the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds. In October 2021, the SDNY granted

defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have appealed.

5. ATA litigation

Since November 2014, a series of lawsuits have been filed against a number of banks, including Credit Suisse AG and,

in two instances, Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY)

and the SDNY alleging claims under the United States Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of

Terrorism Act. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits are, or are relatives of, victims of various terrorist attacks in Iraq and

allege a conspiracy and/or aiding and abetting based on allegations that various international financial institutions,

including the defendants, agreed to alter, falsify or omit information from payment messages that involved Iranian parties

for the express purpose of concealing the Iranian parties’ financial activities and transactions from detection by US

authorities. The lawsuits allege that this conduct has made it possible for Iran to transfer funds to Hezbollah and other

terrorist organizations actively engaged in harming US military personnel and civilians. In January 2023, the United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a September 2019 ruling by the EDNY granting defendants’ motion to

dismiss the first filed lawsuit. In October 2023, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of

certiorari. In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the judgment in the first filed lawsuit. Of the other seven

cases, four are stayed, including one that was dismissed as to Credit Suisse and most of the bank defendants prior to

entry of the stay, and in three plaintiffs have filed amended complaints, including two that were dismissed prior to the

court allowing plaintiffs to replead.

6. Customer account matters

Several clients have claimed that a former relationship manager in Switzerland had exceeded his investment authority in

the management of their portfolios, resulting in excessive concentrations of certain exposures and investment losses.

Credit Suisse AG is investigating the claims, as well as transactions among the clients. Credit Suisse AG filed a criminal

complaint against the former relationship manager with the Geneva Prosecutor’s Office upon which the prosecutor

initiated a criminal investigation. Several clients of the former relationship manager also filed criminal complaints with

the Geneva Prosecutor’s Office. In February 2018, the former relationship manager was sentenced to five years in prison

by the Geneva criminal court for fraud, forgery and criminal mismanagement and ordered to pay damages of

approximately USD

130

m. Several parties appealed the judgment. In June 2019, the Criminal Court of Appeals of Geneva

ruled in the appeal of the judgment against the former relationship manager, upholding the main findings of the Geneva

criminal court. Several parties appealed the decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In February 2020, the Swiss

Federal Supreme Court rendered its judgment on the appeals, substantially confirming the findings of the Criminal Court

of Appeals of Geneva.

Civil lawsuits have been initiated against Credit Suisse AG and/or certain affiliates in various jurisdictions, based on the

findings established in the criminal proceedings against the former relationship manager.

In Singapore, in the civil lawsuit brought against Credit Suisse Trust Limited, a Credit Suisse AG affiliate, in May 2023,

the Singapore International Commercial Court issued a first instance judgment finding for the plaintiffs and directing the

parties’ experts to agree on the amount of the damages award according to the calculation method and parameters

adopted by the court. As the parties’ experts were unable to agree on the amount of the damages, following court

directions, the parties filed their proposed draft orders with supporting documents in August 2023. In September 2023,

the court ruled that the damages under its May 2023 judgment are USD

742.73

m, excluding post-judgment interest.

This figure does not exclude potential overlap with the Bermuda proceedings against Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd.,

which are currently being appealed. The court ordered the parties to ensure that there shall be no double recovery in

relation to this award and any sum recovered in the Bermuda proceedings. Credit Suisse Trust Limited has appealed the

judgment and has applied for a stay of execution pending that appeal. In November 2023, the court granted a stay of

execution of its May 2023 judgment pending appeal on the condition that damages awarded and post-judgment interest

accrued are paid into court deposit within

21

 days, which condition was satisfied.

In Bermuda, in the civil lawsuit brought against Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd., a Credit Suisse AG affiliate, trial took

place in the Supreme Court of Bermuda in November and December 2021. The Supreme Court of Bermuda issued a first

instance judgment in March 2022, finding for the plaintiff. In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Bermuda issued an order

awarding damages of USD

607.35

m to the plaintiff. In May 2022, Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd. appealed the decision

to the Bermuda Court of Appeal. In July 2022, the Supreme Court of Bermuda granted a stay of execution of its judgment

pending appeal on the condition that damages awarded were paid into an escrow account within

42

 days, which

condition was satisfied. In June 2023, the Bermuda Court of Appeal issued its judgment confirming the award issued by

the Supreme Court of Bermuda and upholding the Supreme Court of Bermuda’s finding that Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda)

Ltd. had breached its contractual and fiduciary duties, but overturning the Supreme Court of Bermuda’s finding that

Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd. had made fraudulent misrepresentations. In July 2023, Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd.

filed its notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and applied for a stay of

execution of the Bermuda Court of Appeal’s judgment pending the outcome of the appeal to the Judicial Committee of

the Privy Council on the condition that the damages awarded remain within the escrow account and that interest be

added to the escrow account calculated at the Bermuda statutory rate of

3.5

%. A hearing on the applications for leave

to appeal and stay of execution took place in December 2023. Further, in December 2023, USD

75

m was released from

the escrow account and paid to plaintiffs. In February 2024, the Bermuda Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and

ordered that the current stay shall continue pending determination of the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy

Council until and unless the plaintiffs provide a top tier bank guarantee for the remaining judgment debt of USD

536.64

m

plus interest.

In Switzerland, civil lawsuits have commenced against Credit Suisse AG in the Court of First Instance of Geneva, with

statements of claim served in March 2023.

7. Mozambique matter

Credit Suisse has been subject to investigations by regulatory and enforcement authorities, as well as civil litigation,

regarding certain Credit Suisse entities’ arrangement of loan financing to Mozambique state enterprises, Proindicus S.A.

and Empresa Moçambicana de Atum S.A. (EMATUM), a distribution to private investors of loan participation notes (LPN)

related to the EMATUM financing in September 2013, and certain Credit Suisse entities’ subsequent role in arranging

the exchange of those LPNs for Eurobonds issued by the Republic of Mozambique. In 2019, three former Credit Suisse

employees pleaded guilty in the EDNY to accepting improper personal benefits in connection with financing transactions

carried out with two Mozambique state enterprises.

In October 2021, Credit Suisse reached settlements with the DOJ, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the

UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and FINMA to resolve inquiries by these agencies, including findings that Credit

Suisse failed to appropriately organize and conduct its business with due skill and care, and manage risks. Credit Suisse

Group AG entered into a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the DOJ in connection with the criminal

information charging Credit Suisse Group AG with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and consented to the entry of a

Cease and Desist Order by the SEC. Under the terms of the DPA, UBS Group AG (as successor to Credit Suisse Group AG)

must continue compliance enhancement and remediation efforts agreed by Credit Suisse, report to the DOJ on those

efforts for three years and undertake additional measures as outlined in the DPA. If the DPA’s conditions are complied

with, the charges will be dismissed at the end of the DPA’s three-year term. In addition, CSSEL entered into a Plea

Agreement and pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the US federal wire fraud statute. CSSEL is bound by

the same compliance, remediation and reporting obligations under the DPA. The total monetary sanctions paid to the

DOJ and SEC, taking into account various credits and offsets, was approximately USD

275

m. Under the terms of the

resolution with the DOJ, Credit Suisse also paid USD

22.6

m in restitution to eligible investors in the 2016 Eurobonds

issued by the Republic of Mozambique.

In connection with the resolution with the FCA, Credit Suisse paid a penalty of approximately USD

200

m and, further to

an agreement with the FCA, forgave USD

200

m of debt owed to Credit Suisse by Mozambique.

The FINMA decree concluding its enforcement proceeding, ordered the bank to remediate certain deficiencies. Credit

Suisse’s implementation of the measures required under the FINMA decree has been reviewed by an independent third

party appointed by FINMA, which review recommends some enhancements to the measures that Credit Suisse has

implemented. FINMA also arranged for certain existing transactions to be reviewed by the same independent third party

on the basis of specific risk criteria, and required enhanced disclosure of certain sovereign transactions.

In February 2019, certain Credit Suisse entities, three former employees and several other unrelated entities were sued in

the English High Court by the Republic of Mozambique seeking a declaration that the sovereign guarantee issued in

connection with the ProIndicus loan syndication was void, and damages. Credit Suisse entities subsequently filed cross

claims against several entities controlled by Privinvest Holding SAL (Privinvest) that acted as the project contractor, Iskandar

Safa, the owner of Privinvest, and several Mozambique officials. In addition, several of the banks that participated in the

ProIndicus loan syndicate brought claims against Credit Suisse entities seeking a declaration that Credit Suisse is liable to

compensate them for alleged losses suffered as a result of any invalidity of the sovereign guarantee or damages stemming

from the alleged loss. In September 2023, Credit Suisse, the Republic of Mozambique, and certain of the lenders in the

ProIndicus syndicate entered into a settlement agreement that, with the subsequent settlement with Privinvest entities

referred to below, resolved all claims involving Credit Suisse entities in the English High Court.

In February 2022, Privinvest and Iskandar Safa brought a defamation claim in a Lebanese court against CSSEL and Credit

Suisse Group AG and in November 2022, a Privinvest employee who was the lead negotiator on behalf of the Privinvest

entities in relation to the Mozambique transactions, also brought a defamation claim in the same court against those

entities. In November 2023, UBS Group AG (as successor to Credit Suisse Group AG), the Credit Suisse entities, Privinvest

and Iskandar Safa entered into an agreement to settle all claims among them in the English High Court and in Lebanon.

8. Cross-border private banking matters

Credit Suisse offices in various locations, including the UK, the Netherlands, France and Belgium, have been contacted

by regulatory and law enforcement authorities that are seeking records and information concerning investigations into

Credit Suisse’s historical private banking services on a cross-border basis and in part through its local branches and banks.

Credit Suisse has conducted a review of these issues, the UK and French aspects of which have been closed, and is

continuing to cooperate with the authorities.

9. ETN-related litigation

XIV litigation:

Since March 2018, three class action complaints were filed in the SDNY on behalf of a putative class of

purchasers of VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes linked to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term

Futures Index due December 4, 2030 (XIV ETNs). In August 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action

complaint, naming Credit Suisse Group AG and certain affiliates and executives, which asserts claims for violations of

Sections 9(a)(4), 9(f), 10(b) and 20(a) of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections

11 and 15 of the US Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that the defendants are responsible for losses to investors following

a decline in the value of XIV ETNs in February 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November

2018. In September 2019, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims

against the defendants. In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In April 2021, the Second Circuit issued an

order affirming in part and vacating in part the SDNY’s September 2019 decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss

with prejudice. In July 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In March 2023, the court denied plaintiffs’

motion to certify two of their three alleged classes and granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify their third alleged class. In

March 2023, defendants moved for reconsideration and filed a petition for permission to appeal the court’s class

certification decision to the Second Circuit. In April 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint.

In May 2023, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which defendants have opposed. In January 2024,

the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend. In March 2024, the court denied plaintiffs’ renewed

motion to certify two of the three alleged classes, without prejudice, and denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration

on the certification of the third alleged class.

DGAZ litigation:

In January 2022, Credit Suisse AG was named in a class action complaint filed in the SDNY brought on

behalf of a putative class of short sellers of VelocityShares 3x Inverse Natural Gas Exchange Traded Notes linked to the

S&P GSCI Natural Gas Index ER due February 9, 2032 (DGAZ ETNs). The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section

10(b) of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and alleges that Credit Suisse is responsible

for losses suffered by short sellers following a June 2020 announcement that Credit Suisse would delist and suspend

further issuances of the DGAZ ETNs. In July 2022, Credit Suisse AG filed a motion to dismiss. In March 2023, the court

granted Credit Suisse AG’s motion to dismiss. In May 2023, the court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

In February 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

10. Bulgarian former clients matter

Credit Suisse AG has been responding to an investigation by the Swiss Office of the Attorney General (SOAG) concerning

the diligence and controls applied to a historical relationship with Bulgarian former clients who are alleged to have

laundered funds through Credit Suisse AG accounts. In December 2020, the SOAG brought charges against Credit Suisse

AG and other parties. Credit Suisse AG believes its diligence and controls complied with applicable legal requirements

and intends to defend itself vigorously. The trial in the Swiss Federal Criminal Court took place in the first quarter of

2022. In June 2022, Credit Suisse AG was convicted in the Swiss Federal Criminal Court of certain historical organizational

inadequacies in its anti-money laundering framework and ordered to pay a fine of CHF

2

m. In addition, the court seized

certain client assets in the amount of approximately CHF

12

m and ordered Credit Suisse AG to pay a compensatory claim

in the amount of approximately CHF

19

m. In July 2022, Credit Suisse AG appealed the decision to the Swiss Federal

Court of Appeals.

11. SCFF

Credit Suisse has received requests for documents and information in connection with inquiries, investigations,

enforcement and other actions relating to the supply chain finance funds (SCFF) matter by FINMA, the FCA and other

regulatory and governmental agencies. The Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier is reviewing

the matter and has commissioned a report from a third party. Credit Suisse is cooperating with these authorities.

In February 2023, FINMA announced the conclusion of its enforcement proceedings against Credit Suisse in connection

with the SCFF matter. In its order, FINMA reported that Credit Suisse had seriously breached applicable Swiss supervisory

laws in this context with regard to risk management and appropriate operational structures. While FINMA recognized

that Credit Suisse has already taken extensive organizational measures based on its own investigation into the SCFF

matter, particularly to strengthen its governance and control processes, and FINMA is supportive of these measures, the

regulator has ordered certain additional remedial measures. These include a requirement that the most important

(approximately

500

) business relationships must be reviewed periodically and holistically at the Credit Suisse Executive

Board level, in particular for counterparty risks, and that Credit Suisse must set up a document defining the responsibilities

of approximately

600

 of its highest-ranking managers. The latter of these measures has been made applicable UBS Group.

Separate from the enforcement proceeding regarding Credit Suisse, FINMA has opened four enforcement proceedings

against former managers of Credit Suisse.

In May 2023, FINMA opened an enforcement proceeding against Credit Suisse in order to confirm compliance with

supervisory requirements in response to inquiries from FINMA’s enforcement division in the SCFF matter.

The Attorney General of the Canton of Zurich has initiated a criminal procedure in connection with the SCFF matter and

several fund investors have joined the procedure as interested parties. In such procedure, while certain former and active

Credit Suisse employees, among others, have been named as accused persons, Credit Suisse itself is not a party to the

procedure.

Certain civil actions have been filed by fund investors and other parties against Credit Suisse and/or certain officers and

directors in various jurisdictions, which make allegations including mis-selling and breaches of duties of care, diligence

and other fiduciary duties. 

12. Archegos

Credit Suisse has received requests for documents and information in connection with inquiries, investigations and/or

actions relating to Credit Suisse’s relationship with Archegos Capital Management (Archegos), including from FINMA

(assisted by a third party appointed by FINMA), the DOJ, the SEC, the US Federal Reserve, the US Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (CFTC), the US Senate Banking Committee, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the FCA,

COMCO, the Hong Kong Competition Commission and other regulatory and governmental agencies. Credit Suisse is

cooperating with the authorities in these matters.

In July 2023, the US Federal Reserve and the PRA announced resolutions of their investigations of Credit Suisse’s

relationship with Archegos. UBS Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Holdings (USA) Inc., and Credit Suisse AG,

New York Branch entered into an Order to Cease and Desist with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Under the terms of the order, Credit Suisse paid a civil money penalty of USD

269

m and agreed to undertake certain

remedial measures relating to counterparty credit risk management, liquidity risk management and non-financial risk

management, as well as enhancements to board oversight and governance.

CSI and CSSEL entered into a settlement agreement with the PRA providing for the resolution of the PRA’s investigation,

following which the PRA published a Final Notice imposing a financial penalty of GBP

87

m on CSI and CSSEL for breaches

of various of the PRA’s Fundamental Rules.

FINMA also entered a decree dated 14 July 2023 announcing the conclusion of its enforcement proceeding, finding that

Credit Suisse had seriously violated financial market law in connection with its business relationship with Archegos and

ordering remedial measures directed at Credit Suisse AG and UBS Group AG, as the legal successor to Credit Suisse Group

AG. These include a requirement that UBS Group AG apply its restrictions on its own positions relating to individual clients

throughout the financial group, as well as adjustments to the compensation system of the entire financial group to

provide for bonus allocation criteria that take into account risk appetite. FINMA also announced it has opened

enforcement proceedings against a former Credit Suisse manager in connection with this matter.

Civil actions relating to Credit Suisse’s relationship with Archegos have been filed against Credit Suisse and/or certain

officers and directors, including claims for breaches of fiduciary duties.

13. Credit Suisse financial disclosures

Credit Suisse Group AG and certain directors, officers and executives have been named in securities class action

complaints pending in the SDNY. These complaints, filed on behalf of purchasers of Credit Suisse shares, additional tier

1 capital notes (“AT1 notes”), and other securities in 2023, allege that defendants made misleading statements

regarding: (i) customer outflows in late 2022; (ii) the adequacy of Credit Suisse’s financial reporting controls; and (iii) the

adequacy of Credit Suisse’s risk management processes, and include allegations relating to Credit Suisse Group AG’s

merger with UBS Group AG. Many of the actions have been consolidated, and a motion to dismiss has been filed and

remains pending. One additional action, filed in October 2023, has been stayed pending a determination on whether it

should be consolidated with the earlier actions.

Credit Suisse has received requests for documents and information from regulatory and governmental agencies in

connection with inquiries, investigations and/or actions relating to these matters, as well as for other statements regarding

Credit Suisse’s financial condition, including from the SEC, the DOJ and FINMA. Credit Suisse is cooperating with the

authorities in these matters.

14. Merger-related litigation

Certain Credit Suisse Group AG affiliates and certain directors, officers and executives have been named in class action

complaints pending in the SDNY. One complaint, brought on behalf of Credit Suisse shareholders, alleges breaches of

fiduciary duty under Swiss law and civil RICO claims under United States federal law. In February 2024, the court granted

defendants’ motions to dismiss the civil RICO claims and conditionally dismissed the Swiss law claims pending defendants’

acceptance of jurisdiction in Switzerland. In March 2024, having received consents to Swiss jurisdiction from all

defendants served with the complaint, the court dismissed the Swiss law claims against those defendants. Additional

complaints, brought on behalf of holders of Credit Suisse additional tier 1 capital notes (“AT1 noteholders”) allege

breaches of fiduciary duty under Swiss law, arising from a series of scandals and misconduct, which led to Credit Suisse

Group AG’s merger with UBS Group AG, causing losses to shareholders and AT1 noteholders. The motion to dismiss the

first of these complaints was granted in March 2024 on the basis that Switzerland and not New York is the most

appropriate forum for litigation.