Update – UBS does not withdraw documents, experts request additional documents, and Ermotti confirms in a guest article that the purchase offer was made based on incomplete information

UBS did not withdraw the documents it had submitted to the Commercial Court in Zurich within the prescribed deadline. The plaintiffs will therefore definitively be granted access to these materials (see our update of February 16, 2026). In addition, the court-appointed experts have requested further documents for their valuation of Credit Suisse. Furthermore, according to a guest article by Sergio Ermotti in "Le Temps", the UBS offer for Credit Suisse in March 2023 was based on incomplete information. Therefore, for reasons related to fiduciary duty, the offer for Credit Suisse was likely deliberately below the actual value.

Plaintiffs are definitively granted access to UBS internal documents regarding the merger

After the Commercial Court in Zurich had decided that the plaintiffs would receive full access to all documents submitted by UBS, it gave UBS the opportunity to withdraw these documents from the proceedings. Such a withdrawal would have been taken into account to UBS’s detriment in the assessment of evidence (see our update of February 16, 2026).

As confirmed by the Commercial Court in a letter dated March 25, 2026, UBS did not withdraw the submitted documents. These will be available for inspection by the plaintiffs from late April/early May 2026.

It should be noted, however, that access is restricted to the parties and their necessary assistants, is only possible on-site at the Commercial Court, no photographs or copies may be made, and the information may not be disclosed to third parties (again, see our update of February 16, 2026).

Experts request additional documents

The court-appointed experts have now taken action for the first time. In a letter dated March 20, 2026, they requested that the Commercial Court obtain further documents from UBS. Specifically, the experts are seeking access to various documents related to the purchase price allocation prepared under IFRS 3 as part of the initial consolidation. Purchase price allocation under IFRS 3 is an accounting procedure used in acquisitions, in which the total purchase price is allocated to the identifiable assets and liabilities of the acquired company at their current market values.

The "Swiss Investor Protection Association" (Schweizerischer Anlegerschutzverein, SASV) welcomes this step by the experts, not least because it brings into focus the substantial negative goodwill (“badwill”) of approximately USD 29 billion, which must be assessed and contextualized. At the same time, the valuation of individual assets and liabilities within the framework of the purchase price allocation does not replace an independent overall valuation of Credit Suisse at the time of the acquisition and can only serve to support its plausibility.

The parties have until May 4, 2026, to comment on the experts’ submission of March 20, 2026.

Sergio Ermotti confirms insufficient information basis

Finally, a statement by UBS CEO Sergio Ermotti in an article in Le Temps dated March 20, 2026, is noteworthy. He stated that UBS had only “incomplete information” when it offered an acquisition price of around CHF 3 billion for Credit Suisse on March 19, 2023. This statement is remarkable and underscores the importance of an independent valuation of Credit Suisse at the time of the acquisition.

Against this background, the Commercial Court’s decision to commission a court expert report on the going-concern value of Credit Suisse as of March 19, 2023, appears all the more important. If the key decisions were made under significant time pressure and based on incomplete information, a subsequent independent professional review – as now ordered by the Commercial Court – is essential. Without a substantiated valuation, UBS’s Board of Directors, due to its fiduciary duties under corporate law, could at that time only make an offer that excluded the risk of overpayment. Otherwise, it could have exposed itself to potential liability. Consequently, UBS’s offer necessarily had to be below the true value of Credit Suisse.

Disclaimer automated translation:

We assume no liability for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information translated by DeepL. The SASV has no influence on the translation quality. There is no liability claim for any damages incurred. Machine translation does not replace manual translation by certified linguists.