Introduction
The write-off of the Credit Suisse AT1 bonds remains one of the most controversial chapters in Switzerland’s recent financial and regulatory history. The debate has recently been given new impetus by three decisions: (i) BGer 2E_1/2024 (main hearing May 23, 2025; published on September 26, 2025), (ii) the decision of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York of September 30, 2025, and (iii) the partial decision of the Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) of October 1, 2025 in the model case B-2334/2023. In addition to this Insight, we also refer to our previous Insights on these decisions: https://lindemannlaw.ch/de/insights2/cs-at1-abschreibung-rueckschlag-aufseher-neustart-schweizer-krisenbewaeltigung/ and https://lindemannlaw.ch/de/insights2/credit-suisse-ubs-fusion-rechtsprechung-bger-2e1-2024-sdny-2025/. The partial FAC-decision annulled the FINMA ruling of March 19, 2023; FINMA has appealed against this to the Federal Supreme Court (“FSC”). This brings opportunities, risks and deadlines back into focus.
Question 1: What is the timeline for the pending administrative proceedings?
FINMA has referred the partial FAC decision to revoke the emergency ruling to the FSC. At the same time, the other related proceedings have been suspended in principle until a legally binding decision has been made on the revocation. The FAC has also not yet ruled on the reversal (re-crediting/re-establishment of claims and coupons).
The official business statistics of the FSC provide reliable indications of the expected duration: In 2024, the average time to judgment for appeals in public law matters was 202 days and 224 days for the entire process; in 2023, it was 197 and 217 days respectively. These figures are consistent over the years and – taking into account any referrals to lower courts – indicate a multi-stage procedure.
Art. 61 para. 1 APA allows the FAC to decide on the reversal itself or to refer it back to FINMA with binding instructions – with the possibility of a further appeal to the FSC. It is therefore realistic to expect definitive final decisions in all administrative proceedings in the course of 2027 at the earliest.
Question 2: What does the revocation of the FINMA ruling of March 19, 2023 mean? Does this also apply to investors without a FAC-complaint?
Assuming that the FSC confirms the partial FAC-decision on the model procedure, the result of the FC remains that no viability event has occurred and the FINMA ruling will be set aside by the courts. This means that the legal basis for the ordered write-down of the AT1 instruments (nominal value approx. CHF 16.5 billion) no longer applies. As a result, the ruling is treated as if it should not have any binding effect. In substance, the annulment affects all AT1 tranches that have been written off; however, the specific reversal has not yet been decided.
Question 3: What legal options do AT1 owners have?
Parties to the FAC proceedings are awaiting the decision on reversal (re-crediting/re-establishment of claims and coupons). Other proceedings are generally suspended until the reversal becomes legally binding.
Irrespective of whether a FAC complaint has been lodged, a state liability action is possible on the basis of the Liability Act (“VG”). A claim for damages against the Swiss Confederation based on Art. 3 para. 1 VG must first be submitted to the Federal Department of Finance (“FDF”). Art. 20 VG refers to the rules of tort under the Swiss Code of Obligations for the statute of limitations; the written assertion to the FDF interrupts the statute of limitations. If the Confederation does not respond within three months or refuses to do so, an action must be brought within a further six months, with the FSC being the sole instance.
For example, several pension funds have already announced or initiated legal action: Migros Pension Fund, along with other investors, has brought proceedings in relation to the AT1 write-down. Overall, there are now numerous proceedings pending in Switzerland against the federal government in connection with the emergency merger/AT1 write-down. This is a further indication that state liability claims must be actively examined and secured in a timely manner.
For example, several pension funds have already announced or initiated legal action: Migros Pension Fund, along with other investors, has brought proceedings in relation to the AT1 write-down. Overall, there are now numerous proceedings pending in Switzerland against the federal government in connection with the emergency merger/AT1 write-down. This is a further indication that state liability claims must be actively examined and secured in a timely manner.
Once the FINMA ruling has been rescinded, the chances of success of a civil action against UBS also increase, provided that the relevant AT1 conditions (including a viability event) were not met. This is primarily a matter of performance or reversal and possibly damages. The specialist reporting sees substantial points of attack under civil law here; the relevant AT1 contractual conditions must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
For certain foreign investors, investment protection agreements and arbitration proceedings (possibly ICSID) may come into consideration; in addition to the legal remedies and appeals provided for under Swiss law, these must also be examined on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Singaporean law firm Drew & Napier – which represents around 560 bondholders from Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore – has announced that it will assert claims against the Swiss Confederation on the basis of bilateral investment protection agreements and with financing from the litigation financing company Omni Bridgeway (following trigger letters previously sent in December 2024 and May 2025; claimed damages approximately USD 300 million)
Question 4: What are the risks of further legal action?
Until the FSC’s decision on the annulment, a procedural suspension of related proceedings is very likely; the FAC route to reversal can also lead via Art. 61 VwVG via referral to FINMA – with the option of a further appeal to the FSC.
In liability proceedings under the VG, the legality of a legally binding administrative act pursuant to Art. 12 VG cannot be reviewed (again). State liability actions also involve a certain political risk and are evidence-intensive (natural and adequate causal link, quantification of damage, etc.).
There is only a good chance of success against UBS under civil law if the courts (in the last instance) come to the conclusion that there was no viability event or that the contractual requirements were not met. This would be the case if the FINMA ruling of March 19, 2023 is definitively revoked by the FSC. In this case, the relevant AT1 contractual conditions must be assessed in detail and used in terms of litigation strategy.
Question 5: As an AT1 investor, should I simply wait and watch the process?
No! Waiting is risky in view of the current limitation and forfeiture periods. Pursuant to Art. 20 para. 1 VG in conjunction with Art. 60 para. 1 OR, state liability claims against the federal government are time-barred. Art. 60 para. 1 CO relatively limits to three years from knowledge of damage and damaging party (for AT1 depreciation typically from March 2023). Art. 20 para. 2 sentence 2 VG also stipulates that the written submission to the FDF interrupts the limitation period. In practice, this means that The statute of limitations risk requires a well-founded FDF request to be submitted by March 2026 at the latest. At the same time, the filing of a civil action against UBS should possibly be prepared strategically.
Conclusion
The partial FAC ruling has turned the tide decisively: The FINMA ruling of March 19, 2023 was revoked; the legal basis for the complete write-down of the AT1 bonds of CHF 16.5 bn has thus ceased to exist (subject to the FSC ruling). As a result of the emergency sale of CS, UBS realized an extraordinary gain of around USD 29 bn (negative goodwill) – an amount that significantly exceeds the nominal value of the AT1 tranche.
However, the path to compensation remains complex and deadline-driven. LINDEMANNLAW is your partner in such matters: our litigation practice knows the subject matter, the jurisdictions and the tactics – from state liability to civil action to arbitration – and will enforce your claims in a targeted manner. Contact us – we will advise and represent you competently and effectively in this area of law.
Disclaimer: This publication contains general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The assessment always depends on the circumstances of the individual case. For advice on your specific situation, please contact us directly.
