
Law firm challenges Swiss court over delay in Credit Suisse AT1 write-down case, filing shows
LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - A Zurich-based law firm has filed a complaint with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court challenging a tribunal's delay in addressing investors' claim on the write-down of Credit Suisse bonds, a legal filing seen by Reuters shows.
Hundreds of bondholders in April 2023 sued market regulator FINMA at the Swiss administrative court in St. Gallen to recoup losses on 16 billion Swiss francs ($19.4 billion) of AT1 bonds that were written down when UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab rescued Credit Suisse.
There has been no significant activity by the Federal Administrative Court since spring 2024, the filing, submitted in German, shows.
A spokesperson for the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the court had received the complaint.
The complaint was filed by Zurich-based law firm grosz I poledna, acting for Pallas, the law firm representing the investors, around mid-May, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.
Pallas represents about 800 clients who at the time of the write-down held around $2 billion of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds, a representative for the law firm told Reuters. Pallas declined to comment for the story.
A representative for Switzerland's Federal Administrative court in St. Gallen said: "The proceedings are particularly challenging due to their scope, the high number of parties and the complexity of the legal issues involved, and entail many procedural steps. This is a multi-party procedure, whereby it must also be ensured that all complainants or their legal representatives are granted the right to be heard. We treat the proceedings as a priority."
A spokesperson for FINMA declined to comment.
While questions of an administrative nature were clarified between the second half of 2023 and spring 2024, according to the filing, there have been no "discernible activities" by the Federal Administrative Court, the filing shows.
"While this case is unprecedented for the Swiss courts as there have never been so many appellants challenging one FINMA order, by now it should have progressed as appellants have a right to have their case looked at expeditiously," said Jonas Hertner, a Zurich-based lawyer who had previously represented Credit Suisse AT1 clients at law firm Quinn Emanuel.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the head of the Swiss judiciary system and appellants can file complaints to pressure the administrative court to act.
There is no deadline by which the Supreme Court is required to respond, but complaints of this kind could take a few months, according to lawyers.
In October 2023, Reuters reported that the St. Gallen administrative tribunal was weighing whether to grant Credit Suisse investors access to more documents. Back then, some investors had hoped to gain access to filings in a matter of weeks.
The documents, including the responses to the appeal by Credit Suisse and FINMA, have not yet been made public, according to the complaint.
The write-down shocked markets and upended a long-established practice of granting bondholders' priority over shareholders in a debt recovery. The market has since recovered with UBS tapping the AT1 market after the Credit Suisse rescue.
($1 = 0.8241 Swiss francs)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an ' island of strangers ' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely.


Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that 'excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.' Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir's recent statement that without fair immigration rules, 'we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech. The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as 'very Brexity'. Mr Foulkes later received an apology and £20,000 compensation. Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests. The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law. Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to 'treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude'. He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing 'offensive and anti-trans' websites and 'focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy'. Prevent referral could stain person's name Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require 'no further action', their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams. Lord Young said: 'There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.' The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as 'cultural nationalists' by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sir William recommended that Prevent must be 'consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.' He added that there were major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: 'It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.' A former government adviser said the 'cultural nationalism' definition was 'pretty shoddy'. 'Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,' they said. 'We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.' Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: 'We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic.''


The Sun
42 minutes ago
- The Sun
MrQ Casino Bonus: 200 Cash Spins on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold
GET READY to make a splash with MrQ casino bonus! New UK players over 18 years can dive into a four-day spin extravaganza on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold. Just deposit £10 each day with bonus code POTS200 and watch up to 200 thrilling cash spins land in your account. Sounds juicy! Let's show you how. What is MrQ's welcome offer? MrQ Casino brings in something special for new players. Imagine this: every day for four days, you deposit and spend a tenner (£10) and instantly unlock 50 electric cash spins on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold. Each spin is valued at 10p per spin, so you receive £20 as extra rewards. The best part? There are no wagering requirements on free spins and associated winnings. So, you can withdraw them anytime or use them to enjoy more games. However, there's a catch! If you miss a day within the first four days, you may not claim the full 200 free spins. You also have 12 hours after each deposit to wager at least £10 and trigger 50 free spins. Once they land in your account, they must be used within 48 hours. It's vital to note that MrQ Casinos has provided a list of games you shouldn't wager your £10 on, as they make you ineligible for this offer. You can bet on other available games, especially slots, to earn free spins. How to claim MrQ casino offer Visit MrQ's official website and create an account using your email address and a password. Once in your profile, click the ' Claim Offer' button. This takes you to a deposit window. Deposit at least £10 and stake it on Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold (or another eligible slot) within 12 hours. Watch 50 cash spins pop into your account instantly. Repeat steps 3 and 4 on days two, three, and four to reel in all 200 spins. What happens next? As soon as you hit that £10 spend each day, your spins will splash into 'My Rewards'. Afterwards, load up Fishin' BIGGER Pots of Gold and spin its reels for free. Remember, your spins vanish after 48 hours, so use them quickly. What about potential wins? They drop straight into your cash balance with no hoops to jump through, ready for withdrawal or more play. If you have leftover spins after the 48-hour expiry window, they'll sail off quietly. Terms and conditions of the MrQ casino bonus offer This casino bonus has its own terms and conditions. Let's review them This offer is available to new UK customers aged 18 years or above. Deposit and spend £10 per day within 12 hours for 50 spins daily (200 total). Spins expire 48 hours after credit; unused spins are removed. No wagering requirement on spin winnings; large wins may undergo security checks. We recommend that you wager responsibly and adhere to any applicable terms and conditions, as failure to do so may result in disqualification from any available offer. Remember to gamble responsibly A responsible gambler is someone who: For help with a gambling problem, call the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133 or go to to be excluded from all UK-regulated gambling websites.