Retail News CRM

Tag: ruling

  • UBS Set to Appeal Crucial Court Ruling on Credit Suisse AT1 Bonds: A Challenge to Ensure Credibility and Recovery

    UBS Set to Appeal Crucial Court Ruling on Credit Suisse AT1 Bonds: A Challenge to Ensure Credibility and Recovery

    The Swiss Federal Administrative Court’s partial ruling on October 13, 2025, sparked controversy over the legal legitimacy of deeming Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds valueless. This occurred subsequent to an appeal lodged by Swiss financial regulator, Finma. Now, UBS has publicly announced its intention to file a similar appeal.

    UBS Announces Appeal

    UBS made a public announcement in tandem with the release of its third-quarter results for the year 2025. The bank expressed its decision to challenge the Federal Administrative Court’s partial ruling in the AT1 litigation. The bank stated that the appeal aims to ensure the court considers their perspective on the significant facts relating to the acquisition. Further, UBS conveyed that filing an appeal is necessary to maintain the credibility of AT1 instruments, given their crucial role in the resolution and recovery of banks.

    Crucial Component of the Rescue Package

    UBS underscored that writing off Credit Suisse’s AT1 instruments was a pivotal part of the rescue package. The bank expressed its belief that the write-off complied with the contractual terms of the AT1 instruments and the applicable law. UBS also maintained that Finma’s decision was within legal bounds.

    UBS further made reference to the conclusions drawn by the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (PUK). PUK had declared that Credit Suisse would have been insolvent without the aid from the rescue package. They would have been incapable of continuing operations after Monday, March 20, 2023.

    Inadequate Ruling

    The Federal Administrative Court had concluded in October that the legal grounds for Finma’s decision to declare Credit Suisse’s AT1 bonds valueless were insufficient. Finma had already challenged the decision at the Federal Supreme Court, and UBS has now decided to do the same.

    Questions & Answers

    Why has UBS decided to appeal the partial ruling of the Federal Administrative Court?
    UBS intends to appeal the ruling to ensure that their viewpoint on the key facts concerning the acquisition is considered by the court. Additionally, they believe that an appeal is necessary to uphold the credibility of AT1 instruments, given the significant role they play in the recovery and resolution of banks.

    What was UBS’s stance on the write-down of Credit Suisse’s AT1 instruments?
    UBS has emphasized that the write-down of Credit Suisse’s AT1 instruments was a fundamental part of the rescue package. The bank believes that the write-down was in line with the contractual terms of the AT1 instruments and the law, asserting that Finma’s decision was lawful.

    What did the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission conclude about Credit Suisse’s situation?
    The Parliamentary Inquiry Commission concluded that without the rescue package, Credit Suisse would have become insolvent and would not have been able to continue operations beyond March 20, 2023.

  • HSBC To Acknowledge $1.1b Provision Following Luxembourg Court Ruling Tied To Madoff Scandal

    HSBC To Acknowledge $1.1b Provision Following Luxembourg Court Ruling Tied To Madoff Scandal

    HSBC, a London-based financial institution, is set to acknowledge a significant provision following a court ruling in Luxembourg, in relation to an ongoing lawsuit tied to the infamous Bernard Madoff scandal.

    The Madoff Scandal Impact

    HSBC is expected to make an accounting provision amounting to $1.1 billion in its third quarter financial results. This move comes as a consequence of the Luxembourg court’s ruling on Bernard Madoff’s fraudulent investment scheme, as stated in an official report.

    The lawsuit dates back to 2009, when Herald Fund SPC sought legal action against HSBC’s Luxembourg division. The fund sought the recovery of assets it asserted were lost in the Madoff fraud scandal. It is important to note that the British bank served as a service provider to several investment funds involved with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

    HSBC’s Legal Battle

    The Luxembourg court, on October 24, 2025, rejected an appeal by HSBC Securities Services Luxembourg (HSSL) regarding the recovery of securities. Nevertheless, the court accepted HSSL’s appeal related to a separate cash recovery claim. In response, HSSL plans to file another appeal. If this appeal is unsuccessful, the firm will challenge the sum to be paid in subsequent legal proceedings.

    Implications for HSBC

    The sizable provision is estimated to affect HSBC’s common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio by approximately 15 basis points. However, it is expected to have no impact on the yearly return on tangible equity, excluding notable items, nor on the distribution of dividends.

    Questions & Answers

    What is the value of the provision HSBC is expected to recognize?
    HSBC is expected to recognize a provision of $1.1 billion in its third quarter results.

    Why is HSBC recognizing this provision?
    This provision is a result of a Luxembourg court ruling tied to the Bernard Madoff investment fraud scandal.

    What will be the impact of this provision on HSBC’s financials?
    The provision is estimated to affect HSBC’s CET1 capital ratio by about 15 basis points, but it will not impact the yearly return on tangible equity, excluding key items, or the distribution of dividends.

  • Uber To Halt App In Brussels, Belgium From Friday After Court Ruling

    Uber To Halt App In Brussels, Belgium From Friday After Court Ruling

    Uber Technologies Inc. said it would halt operations in Brussels from Nov. 26 after a court ruled that a 2015 ban on private individuals offering taxi services also applies to professional drivers.

    Uber said the decision by the Brussels Appeals Court on Wednesday will affect around 2,000 drivers, and it urged the Belgian government to quickly change taxi service laws.

  • Alibaba fined US$2.75bn for anti-monopoly violations by Chinese regulators

    Alibaba fined US$2.75bn for anti-monopoly violations by Chinese regulators

    Chinese regulators have fined Alibaba 18 billion yuan ($2.75 billion) – around 4 percent of its revenues in 2019 – for violating anti-monopoly rules and abusing its dominant market position.

    The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) said that after an investigation launched in December, it had determined that Alibaba Group had been “abusing market dominance” since 2015 by preventing its merchants from using other online e-commerce platforms.

    It said the practice violates China’s anti-monopoly law by hindering the free circulation of goods and infringing on the business interests of merchants.

    The SAMR ordered Alibaba to make “thorough rectifications” to strengthen internal compliance and protect consumer rights.

    The company said in a statement posted on its official Weibo account that it “accepted” the decision and would resolutely implement SAMR’s rulings. It said it would also work to improve corporate compliance.

    The practice of preventing merchants from listing on rival platforms is a long-standing one. The market regulator spelled out in rules issued on February that it was illegal.

    Alibaba has also been under heavy scrutiny since its founder Jack Ma criticized China’s regulatory system in October.

    Ant Group, Alibaba’s fintech arm, also saw its $37 billion listing plans dramatically suspended by authorities in November.