SRF research on the bank merger: 9 billion guarantee for UBS without a written obligation

2023-04-21 07:15:25

9 billion guarantee for UBS without written obligation

After Parliament voted no to the loans, the federal government insisted that this decision had no effect. According to SRF, however, there is no written document that could prove an obligation.

Published: 04/21/2023, 09:15

Even after Parliament voted no, the federal government is sticking to the UBS loans – but the legal situation is uncertain without a written commitment.

Photo: Michael Buholzer (Keystone)

After Parliament subsequently rejected the 9 billion guarantee for UBS, there is disagreement as to whether this decision has legal effect. The Federal Council takes the position that the guarantees cannot be revoked.

However, research by SRF now shows that the federal government and UBS have not signed any written commitment. “To date, there is no written document signed by both sides for UBS’s 9 billion loss guarantee that could prove such a binding agreement,” says Radio SRF 4 News on “Heute Morgen”.

There is an agreement on the CHF 100 billion guarantee from the National Bank. However, there is no document signed by both parties for the 9 billion guarantee to UBS, writes SRF.

According to the Finance Department, the “overall package is central”

When SRF asked what the federal government had signed on March 19, i.e. on the day of the CS takeover, the Federal Department of Finance replied: “The guarantee agreement between the federal government and the Swiss National Bank was signed by Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter on behalf of the Federal Council.”

According to the SRF, the finance department also mentions “verbal agreements” in the answer, which are “part of the overall package”. It also takes the position that the guarantee to UBS has nevertheless already been made binding, because: “The overall package is central.”

According to legal experts, however, there is great legal uncertainty in this case. As Andreas Glaser, professor of constitutional law at the University of Zurich, says to Radio SRF 4 News, the deal could also be legally binding orally. The big problem with a non-written contract is the lack of evidence, for example in the event of a conflict.

“If everything goes well, there is no dispute or any ambiguity, then in the end it would not be a problem. But if any problems arise, then the question arises: Who proves the alleged verbal agreement? », says Glaser.

According to legal experts, the federal government must create clarity

The situation complicates the question of legal effects. “If we had a contract, then the decision of Parliament would really have no effect. But today the situation is much more unclear than it was before Parliament made its decision,” said the constitutional law professor.

When asked by Radio SRF 4 News whether the Federal Council would be allowed to sign such a contract with UBS afterwards, Glaser said: “It depends on what he has already agreed with UBS. If that is actually the case, that there are binding verbal agreements, then he should also draw up a written contract as part of these agreements. But if nothing else was discussed then he would now have to row back as far as he can because Parliament said we don’t want this deal.”

Parliament and the public are now dependent on the Federal Council to put all its cards on the table and create clarity. Only then can Parliament, knowing all the facts, decide what to do. According to Glaser, however, it is unlikely that a final legal clarification will be obtained, for example in court, given this legal uncertainty. Rather, it will amount to a political assessment, with a parliamentary commission of inquiry working on the case.