40 Litigation

The Group is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its businesses, including those disclosed below. Some of these proceedings have been brought on behalf of various classes of claimants and seek damages of material and/or indeterminate amounts.

The Group accrues loss contingency litigation provisions and takes a charge to income in connection with certain proceedings when losses, additional losses or ranges of loss are probable and reasonably estimable. The Group also accrues litigation provisions for the estimated fees and expenses of external lawyers and other service providers in relation to such proceedings, including in cases for which it has not accrued a loss contingency provision. The Group accrues these fee and expense litigation provisions and takes a charge to income in connection therewith when such fees and expenses are probable and reasonably estimable. The Group reviews its legal proceedings each quarter to determine the adequacy of its litigation provisions and may increase or release provisions based on management’s judgment and the advice of counsel. This review includes consideration of management’s strategy for resolution of matters through settlement or trial, as well as changes in such strategy. The establishment of additional provisions or releases of litigation provisions may be necessary in the future as developments in such proceedings warrant.

The specific matters described below include (a) proceedings where the Group has accrued a loss contingency provision, given that it is probable that a loss may be incurred and such loss is reasonably estimable; and (b) proceedings where the Group has not accrued such a loss contingency provision for various reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that any related losses are not reasonably estimable. The description of certain of the matters below includes a statement that the Group has established a loss contingency provision and discloses the amount of such provision; for the other matters no such statement is made. With respect to the matters for which no such statement is made, either (a) the Group has not established a loss contingency provision, in which case the matter is treated as a contingent liability under the applicable accounting standard, or (b) the Group has established such a provision but believes that disclosure of that fact would violate confidentiality obligations to which the Group is subject or otherwise compromise attorney-client privilege, work product protection or other protections against disclosure or compromise the Group’s management of the matter. The future outflow of funds in respect of any matter for which the Group has accrued loss contingency provisions cannot be determined with certainty based on currently available information, and accordingly may ultimately prove to be substantially greater (or may be less) than the provision that is reflected on the Group’s balance sheet.

It is inherently difficult to determine whether a loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the amount of any loss or loss range for many of the Group’s legal proceedings. Estimates, by their nature, are based on judgment and currently available information and involve a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the type and nature of the proceeding, the progress of the matter, the advice of counsel, the Group’s defenses and its experience in similar matters, as well as its assessment of matters, including settlements, involving other defendants in similar or related cases or proceedings. Factual and legal determinations, many of which are complex, must be made before a loss, additional losses or ranges of loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding.

Most matters pending against the Group seek damages of an indeterminate amount. While certain matters specify the damages claimed, such claimed amount may not represent the Group’s reasonably possible losses. For certain of the proceedings discussed below the Group has disclosed the amount of damages claimed and certain other quantifiable information that is publicly available.

The following table presents a roll forward of the Group’s aggregate litigation provisions.

Litigation provisions

		2022
CHF million
Balance at beginning of period		1,539
Increase in litigation accruals		1,907
Decrease in litigation accruals		(347)
Decrease for settlements and other cash payments		(1,999)
Foreign exchange translation		72
Balance at end of period		1,172

The Group’s aggregate litigation provisions include estimates of losses, additional losses or ranges of loss for proceedings for which such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Group does not believe that it can estimate an aggregate range of reasonably possible losses for certain of its proceedings because of their complexity, the novelty of some of the claims, the early stage of the proceedings, the limited amount of discovery that has occurred and/or other factors. The Group’s estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses that are not covered by existing provisions for the proceedings discussed below for which the Group believes an estimate is possible is zero to CHF 1.2 billion.

After taking into account its litigation provisions, the Group believes, based on currently available information and advice of counsel, that the results of its legal proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Group’s financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties of such proceedings, including those brought by regulators or other governmental authorities, the ultimate cost to the Group of resolving such proceedings may exceed current litigation provisions and any excess may be material to its operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Mortgage-related matters

Government and regulatory related matters

Various financial institutions, including Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (CSS LLC) and certain of its affiliates, have received requests for information from, and/or have been defending civil actions by, certain regulators and/or government entities, including the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and other members of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) Working Group of the US Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, regarding the origination, purchase, securitization, servicing and trading of subprime and non-subprime residential and commercial mortgages and related issues. CSS LLC and its affiliates are cooperating with such requests for information.

DOJ RMBS settlement

As previously disclosed, on January 18, 2017, CSS LLC and its current and former US subsidiaries and US affiliates reached a settlement with the DOJ related to its legacy RMBS business, a business conducted through 2007. The settlement resolved potential civil claims by the DOJ related to certain of those Credit Suisse entities’ packaging, marketing, structuring, arrangement, underwriting, issuance and sale of RMBS. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement a civil monetary penalty was paid to the DOJ in January 2017. The settlement also required the above-mentioned entities to provide certain levels of consumer relief measures, including affordable housing payments and loan forgiveness, and the DOJ and Credit Suisse agreed to the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee the completion of the consumer relief requirements of the settlement. Credit Suisse continues to evaluate its approach toward satisfying its remaining consumer relief obligations in light of its business reassessment and anticipated related transactions, and Credit Suisse currently anticipates that it will take much longer than the five-year period provided in the settlement to satisfy in full its obligations in respect of these consumer relief measures and that it may only complete them by 2026 or later, subject to market conditions and the Group’s risk appetite. Credit Suisse expects to incur costs in relation to satisfying those obligations. The amount of consumer relief Credit Suisse must provide also increases after 2021 pursuant to the original settlement by 5% per annum of the outstanding amount due until these obligations are settled. The monitor publishes reports periodically on these consumer relief matters.

NJAG litigation

On December 18, 2013, the New Jersey Attorney General (NJAG), on behalf of the State of New Jersey, filed a civil action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County (SCNJ), against CSS LLC and affiliated entities in their roles as issuer, sponsor, depositor and/or underwriter of RMBS transactions prior to 2008. The complaint, which referenced approximately USD 10 billion of original unpaid principal balance across 13 RMBS issued, sponsored, deposited and underwritten by CSS LLC and its affiliates in 2006 and 2007, alleged that CSS LLC and its affiliates misled investors and engaged in fraud or deceit in connection with the offer and sale of RMBS, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On October 25, 2022, following a settlement in the amount of USD 495 million, for which Credit Suisse was fully reserved, the SCNJ dismissed with prejudice all claims against CSS LLC and affiliated entities.

Civil litigation

CSS LLC and/or certain of its affiliates have also been named as defendants in various civil litigation matters related to their roles as issuer, sponsor, depositor, underwriter and/or servicer of RMBS transactions. These cases include or have included class action lawsuits, actions by individual investors in RMBS, actions by monoline insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for certain RMBS, and repurchase actions by RMBS trusts, trustees and/or investors. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, plaintiffs in the class actions and individual investor actions generally allege that the offering documents of securities issued by various RMBS securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including statements regarding the underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued; monoline insurers generally allege that loans that collateralize RMBS they insured breached representations and warranties made with respect to the loans at the time of securitization and that they were fraudulently induced to enter into the transactions; and repurchase action plaintiffs generally allege breached representations and warranties in respect of mortgage loans and failure to repurchase such mortgage loans as required under the applicable agreements. The amounts disclosed below do not reflect actual realized plaintiff losses to date or anticipated future litigation exposure. Rather, unless otherwise stated, these amounts reflect the original unpaid principal balance amounts as alleged in these actions and do not include any reduction in principal amounts since issuance. Further, unless otherwise stated, amounts attributable to an “operative pleading” for the individual investor actions are not

altered for settlements, dismissals or other occurrences, if any, that may have caused the amounts to change subsequent to the operative pleading. In addition to the mortgage-related actions discussed below, a number of other entities have threatened to assert claims against CSS LLC and/or its affiliates in connection with various RMBS issuances.

Individual investor actions

CSS LLC as an RMBS issuer, underwriter and/or other participant, along with other defendants, was named as a defendant in an action brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as receiver for Colonial Bank, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), in which claims against CSS LLC related to approximately USD 92 million of the RMBS at issue (approximately 23% of the USD 394 million at issue against all defendants in the operative pleading). On June 28, 2022, CSS LLC and the plaintiffs executed an agreement to settle and dismiss all claims against CSS LLC.

In early March 2022, in an action brought by the FDIC, as receiver for Citizens National Bank and Strategic Capital Bank, in the SDNY, in which claims related to approximately USD 28 million of RMBS at issue, CSS LLC and its affiliates executed an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle and dismiss all claims against CSS LLC and its affiliates.

CSS LLC and certain of its affiliates were the only defendants named in an action brought by IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and affiliated entities in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County (SCNY), in which claims against CSS LLC and its affiliates related to approximately USD 97 million of RMBS at issue. On April 12, 2022, the parties executed an agreement to settle and dismiss all claims against CSS LLC and its affiliates.

Repurchase litigations

DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (DLJ) is a defendant in: (i) one action brought by Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-HE7, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD 374 million in an amended complaint filed on August 19, 2019; on January 13, 2020, DLJ filed a motion to dismiss; (ii) one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust, Series 2006-8, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD 436 million; (iii) one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-1, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD 420 million; on December 27, 2018, the SCNY denied DLJ’s motion for partial summary judgment in this action, and the Appellate Division First Department of the SCNY (First Department) affirmed the SCNY’s summary judgment order on October 10, 2019; on January 30, 2020, DLJ obtained leave to further appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals; on March 17, 2022, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the First Department and ordered that DLJ’s motion for partial summary judgment be granted; a non-jury trial in the action was held between January 23 and February 3, 2023, and a decision is pending; (iv) one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust 2007-2, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD 495 million; and (v) one action brought by CSMC Asset-Backed Trust 2007-NC1, in which no damages amount is alleged. These actions are brought in the SCNY and are at various procedural stages.

DLJ is also a defendant in one action brought by Home Equity Asset Trust Series 2007-3, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD 206 million. On March 5, 2022, DLJ and the plaintiffs executed an agreement to settle this action. The settlement remains subject to approval through a trust instruction proceeding brought in Minnesota state court by the trustee of the plaintiff trust.

DLJ and its affiliate, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), are defendants in two actions that have been consolidated for certain procedural purposes, including trial, in the SCNY: one action brought by Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2006-1, Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2006-3 and Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2006-4, in which plaintiffs allege damages of not less than USD 730 million, and allege that SPS obstructed the investigation into the full extent of the defects in the mortgage pools by refusing to afford the trustee reasonable access to certain origination files; and one action brought by Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2006-5, in which plaintiff alleges damages of not less than USD 500 million, and alleges that SPS likely discovered DLJ’s alleged breaches of representations and warranties but did not notify the trustee of such breaches, in alleged violation of its contractual obligations. On April 19, 2021, DLJ, SPS and the plaintiffs executed an agreement to settle both actions for the aggregate amount of USD 500 million, for which Credit Suisse was fully reserved. The settlement remains subject to approval through a trust instruction proceeding brought in Minnesota state court by the trustee of the plaintiff trusts.

Following the earlier dismissal of three consolidated repurchase actions in the SCNY in 2013 and the New York State Court of Appeals’ upholding of this dismissal in February 2019, on August 15, 2019, the trustees for Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-5, Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-6 and Home Equity Asset Trust 2006-7 commenced a new repurchase action against DLJ in the SCNY, in which plaintiffs alleged damages of not less than USD 936 million, asserting substantially similar claims against DLJ as those alleged in the three consolidated repurchase actions previously dismissed with prejudice in 2013. On November 25, 2019, the SCNY entered an order dismissing this new action with prejudice. On December 20, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the First Department. On November 22, 2022, the plaintiffs withdrew their appeal to the First Department, such that the action is now fully dismissed.

Bank loan litigation

CSS LLC and certain of its affiliates are the subject of certain litigation relating to certain real estate developments including Yellowstone Club and Lake Las Vegas as well as other similar real estate

developments. Credit Suisse defendants in these matters arranged, and acted as the agent bank for, syndicated loans provided to borrowers affiliated with such real estate developments, and who have since gone through bankruptcy or foreclosure. Such litigation includes two cases brought in Texas and New York state courts by entities related to Highland Capital Management LP (Highland). In the case in Texas state court, a jury trial was held in December 2014 and a verdict was issued for the plaintiff on its claim for fraudulent inducement by affirmative misrepresentation, but the jury rejected its claim that CSS LLC and an affiliate had committed fraudulent inducement by omission. The Texas judge held a bench trial on Highland’s remaining claims in May and June 2015, and entered judgment in the amount of USD 287 million (including prejudgment interest) for the plaintiff on September 4, 2015. Both parties appealed and on February 21, 2018, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision. On April 24, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling reversing a portion of the trial court’s September 4, 2015 judgment related to the bench trial, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting fraud, and civil conspiracy claims, including damages of approximately USD 212 million, exclusive of interest, but left standing the separate December 2014 jury verdict for plaintiff on its claims for fraudulent inducement by affirmative misrepresentation. The Texas Supreme Court subsequently remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings related to the calculation of damages and interest. On June 25, 2021, the trial court entered a new judgment, which awarded plaintiff a total of approximately USD 121 million. CSS LLC and its affiliates appealed the judgment. On February 14, 2023, the appeals court issued a ruling, reversing in favor of CSS LLC a portion of the trial court’s June 25, 2021 judgment related to secondary market purchases, concluding in favor of CSS LLC that the trial court erred by failing to apply certain settlement credits to the December 2014 jury award amount and remanding the case to the trial court to consider the amount of prejudgment interest owed to Highland.

In the case in New York state court, the court granted in part and denied in part CSS LLC and certain of its affiliates’ summary judgment motion. Both parties appealed that decision, but the appellate court affirmed the decision in full. The case is currently in discovery.

Tax and securities law matters

On May 19, 2014, Credit Suisse AG entered into settlement agreements with several US regulators regarding its US cross-border matters. As part of the agreements, Credit Suisse AG, among other things, engaged an independent corporate monitor that reports to the New York State Department of Financial Services. As of July 31, 2018, the monitor concluded both his review and his assignment. Credit Suisse AG continues to report to and cooperate with US authorities in accordance with Credit Suisse AG’s obligations under the agreements.

Rates-related matters

Regulatory matters

Regulatory authorities in a number of jurisdictions, including the US, UK, EU and Switzerland, have for an extended period of time been conducting investigations into the setting of LIBOR and other reference rates with respect to a number of currencies, as well as the pricing of certain related derivatives. These ongoing investigations have included information requests from regulators regarding LIBOR-setting practices and reviews of the activities of various financial institutions, including Credit Suisse Group AG, which is a member of three LIBOR rate-setting panels (US Dollar LIBOR, Swiss Franc LIBOR and Euro LIBOR). Credit Suisse is cooperating fully with these investigations. In particular, it has been reported that regulators are investigating whether financial institutions engaged in an effort to manipulate LIBOR, either individually or in concert with other institutions, in order to improve market perception of these institutions’ financial health and/or to increase the value of their proprietary trading positions. In response to regulatory inquiries, Credit Suisse commissioned a review of these issues. To date, Credit Suisse has seen no evidence to suggest that it is likely to have any material exposure in connection with these issues.

Regulatory authorities in a number of jurisdictions, including the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO), the European Commission (Commission), the South African Competition Commission and the Brazilian Competition Authority have been conducting investigations into the trading activities, information sharing and the setting of benchmark rates in the foreign exchange (including electronic trading) markets.

On March 31, 2014, COMCO announced its formal investigation of numerous Swiss and international financial institutions, including Credit Suisse Group AG, in relation to the setting of exchange rates in foreign exchange trading. Credit Suisse continues to cooperate with this ongoing investigation.

Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (CSSEL) received a Statement of Objections and a Supplemental Statement of Objections from the Commission on July 26, 2018 and March 19, 2021, respectively, alleging that Credit Suisse entities engaged in anticompetitive practices in connection with their foreign exchange trading business. On December 6, 2021, the Commission issued a formal decision imposing a fine of EUR 83.3 million. On February 15, 2022, Credit Suisse appealed this decision to the EU General Court.

The reference rates investigations have also included information requests from regulators concerning supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds and commodities markets. Credit Suisse Group AG and CSSEL received a Statement of Objections from the Commission on December 20, 2018, alleging that Credit Suisse entities engaged in anticompetitive practices in connection with their SSA bonds trading business. On April 28, 2021, the

Commission issued a formal decision imposing a fine of EUR 11.9 million. On July 8, 2021, Credit Suisse appealed this decision to the EU General Court.

Civil litigation

USD LIBOR litigation

Beginning in 2011, certain Credit Suisse entities were named in various putative class and individual lawsuits filed in the US, alleging banks on the US dollar LIBOR panel manipulated US dollar LIBOR to benefit their reputation and increase profits. All remaining matters have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into a multi-district litigation in the SDNY.

In a series of rulings between 2013 and 2019 on motions to dismiss, the SDNY (i) narrowed the claims against the Credit Suisse entities and the other defendants (dismissing antitrust, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Commodity Exchange Act, and state law claims), (ii) narrowed the set of plaintiffs who may bring claims, and (iii) narrowed the set of defendants in the LIBOR actions (including the dismissal of several Credit Suisse entities from various cases on personal jurisdiction and statute of limitation grounds). After a number of putative class and individual plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their antitrust claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit), on December 30, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the SDNY.

On September 21, 2021, in the putative class action brought in the multi-district litigation in the SDNY by holders of bonds tied to LIBOR, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. On November 7, 2022, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the agreement to settle all claims. The settlement remains subject to final court approval.

Separately, on February 4, 2022, three actions brought by individual plaintiffs, and on November 18, 2022, one additional individual action, were dismissed against Credit Suisse.

On November 17, 2021, in the putative class action brought on behalf of those who lent at rates tied to LIBOR, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. On March 11, 2022 and July 26, 2022, respectively, the SDNY entered orders granting preliminary and final approval to the agreement to settle all claims.

Separately, on May 4, 2017, the plaintiffs in three putative class actions moved for class certification. On February 28, 2018, the SDNY denied certification in two of the actions and granted certification over a single antitrust claim in an action brought by over-the-counter purchasers of LIBOR-linked derivatives.

USD ICE LIBOR litigation

In January 2019, members of the US dollar Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, were named in three civil putative class action lawsuits alleging that panel banks suppressed US dollar ICE LIBOR to benefit defendants’ trading positions. These actions have been consolidated in the SDNY. On March 26, 2020, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on February 14, 2022, the Second Circuit dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal of the SDNY’s decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On August 18, 2020, members of the ICE LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, were named in a civil action in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that panel banks manipulated ICE LIBOR to profit from variable interest loans and credit cards. On December 23, 2021, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions to enjoin panel banks from continuing to set LIBOR or automatically setting the benchmark to zero each day, and on September 13, 2022, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. On October 4, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 4, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

CHF LIBOR litigation

In February 2015, various banks that served on the Swiss franc LIBOR panel, including Credit Suisse Group AG, were named in a civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of Swiss franc LIBOR to benefit defendants’ trading positions. After defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted and plaintiffs successfully appealed, on July 13, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. On February 15, 2023, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the agreement to settle all claims. The settlement remains subject to final court approval.

SIBOR/SOR litigation

In July 2016, various banks that served on the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR) panels, including Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, were named in a civil putative class action lawsuit filed in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of SIBOR and SOR to benefit defendants’ trading positions. After defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted and plaintiffs successfully appealed, on April 22, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. On June 9, 2022 and November 29, 2022, respectively, the court entered orders granting preliminary and final approval to the agreement to settle all claims.

Foreign exchange litigation

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates as well as other financial institutions have been named in civil lawsuits relating to the alleged manipulation of foreign exchange rates.

The first pending matter is a consolidated class action. In that matter, on September 3, 2019, the SDNY denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class, ruling that proof of both injury and damages must proceed on an individual basis, but granted certification as to two threshold issues concerning the alleged conspiracy. The SDNY also denied plaintiffs’

motion for certification of a second proposed class in its entirety. On February 1, 2022, the SDNY denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On April 22, 2022, Credit Suisse filed a motion to de-certify the issue class, which was denied on August 31, 2022. A jury trial was held in October 2022 on the issues of whether a conspiracy existed to manipulate bid-ask spreads in the FX market and whether Credit Suisse knowingly participated in any such conspiracy. On October 20, 2022, a verdict was issued in favor of Credit Suisse, finding that Credit Suisse did not knowingly participate in any such conspiracy. On November 10, 2022, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied on February 16, 2023.

A second pending matter originally named Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, in a civil action filed in the SDNY on November 13, 2018. This action was based on the same alleged conduct as the consolidated class action. After the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on July 27, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. On August 31, 2022, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ claims against Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse AG, together with other financial institutions, was also named in a consolidated putative class action in Israel, which made allegations similar to the consolidated class action. On April 4, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. The settlement remains subject to court approval.

Treasury markets litigation

CSS LLC, along with over 20 other primary dealers of US treasury securities, was named in a number of putative civil class action complaints in the US relating to the US treasury markets. These complaints generally alleged that the defendants colluded to manipulate US treasury auctions, as well as the pricing of US treasury securities in the when-issued market, with impacts upon related futures and options. These actions were consolidated into a multi-district litigation in the SDNY. On November 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint containing the previously asserted allegations as well as new allegations concerning a group boycott to prevent the emergence of anonymous, all-to-all trading in the secondary market for treasury securities. On May 22, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the SDNY granted on March 31, 2021. On May 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 4, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2022, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims against the defendants. On April 28, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

SSA bonds litigation

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions and individuals, have been named in several putative class action complaints filed in the SDNY relating to SSA bonds. The complaints generally allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices of SSA bonds sold to and purchased from investors in the secondary market. These actions have been consolidated in the SDNY. On July 19, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY’s September 30, 2019 and March 18, 2020 decisions granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. On August 2, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc and panel rehearing, which the Second Circuit denied on September 2, 2021. On March 3, 2022, plaintiffs moved to vacate the dismissal of their case after the SDNY judge disclosed a conflict. On October 3, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion.

Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, together with other financial institutions, were also named in two Canadian putative class actions, which make allegations similar to the consolidated class action. One putative class action was dismissed against Credit Suisse on February 19, 2020. On October 18, 2022, in the second action, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. The settlement remains subject to court approval.

Bank Bill Swap litigation

On August 16, 2016, Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit Suisse AG, along with other financial institutions, were named in a putative class action brought in the SDNY, alleging manipulation of the Australian Bank Bill Swap reference rate. After the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, on January 21, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all claims. On May 11, 2022 and November 2, 2022, respectively, the court entered orders granting preliminary and final approval to the agreement to settle all claims.

Credit default swap auction litigation

On June 30, 2021, Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other banks and entities, were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of New Mexico alleging manipulation of credit default swap (CDS) final auction prices. On February 4, 2022, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Credit Suisse Group and certain non-Credit Suisse entities and filed an amended complaint naming Credit Suisse AG and affiliates, along with other banks and entities. On April 5, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

OTC trading cases

Interest rate swaps litigation

Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions, have been named in a consolidated putative civil class action complaint and complaints filed by individual plaintiffs relating to interest rate swaps, alleging that dealer defendants conspired with trading platforms to prevent the development of interest rate swap exchanges. The individual lawsuits were brought by TeraExchange LLC, a swap execution facility, and affiliates; Javelin Capital Markets LLC, a swap execution facility, and an affiliate; and trueEX LLC, a swap execution facility, which claim to have suffered lost profits as a result of defendants’ alleged conspiracy. All interest rate swap actions have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the SDNY.

Defendants moved to dismiss the putative class and individual actions, and the SDNY granted in part and denied in part these motions.

On February 20, 2019, class plaintiffs in the consolidated multi-district litigation filed a motion for class certification. On March 20, 2019, class plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidated class action complaint. On January 21, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all class action claims. The settlement remains subject to court approval. The individual lawsuits are stayed pending a decision on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Credit default swaps litigation

On June 8, 2017, Credit Suisse Group AG and affiliates, along with other financial institutions, were named in a civil action filed in the SDNY by Tera Group, Inc. and related entities (Tera), alleging violations of antitrust law in connection with the allegation that CDS dealers conspired to block Tera’s electronic CDS trading platform from successfully entering the market. On July 30, 2019, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 30, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On April 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Stock loan litigation

Credit Suisse Group AG and certain of its affiliates, as well as other financial institutions, were originally named in a number of civil lawsuits in the SDNY, certain of which are brought by class action plaintiffs alleging that the defendants conspired to keep stock-loan trading in an over-the-counter market and collectively boycotted certain trading platforms that sought to enter the market, and certain of which are brought by trading platforms that sought to enter the market alleging that the defendants collectively boycotted the platforms. After the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative class action and plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, on January 20, 2022, Credit Suisse entered into an agreement to settle all class action claims. On February 25, 2022, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the agreement to settle all class action claims. The settlement remains subject to final court approval.

On October 1, 2021, in a consolidated civil litigation brought in the SDNY by entities that developed a trading platform for stock loans that sought to enter the market, alleging that the defendants collectively boycotted the platform, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Odd-lot corporate bond litigation

On April 21, 2020, CSS LLC and other financial institutions were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the SDNY, alleging a conspiracy among the financial institutions to boycott electronic trading platforms and fix prices in the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds. On October 25, 2021, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On November 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit. On March 1, 2022, plaintiffs moved to stay the appeal so that plaintiffs could move to vacate the dismissal of their case after the SDNY judge disclosed a conflict. The motion to stay the appeal was denied on March 15, 2022. On March 30, 2022, because of the conflict, plaintiffs moved in the district court for an indicative ruling vacating the SDNY’s decision dismissing the case. The motion for an indicative ruling was denied on November 10, 2022.

ATA litigation

A lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2014 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) against a number of banks, including Credit Suisse AG, alleging claims under the United States Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The action alleges a conspiracy between Iran and various international financial institutions, including the defendants, in which they agreed to alter, falsify or omit information from payment messages that involved Iranian parties for the express purpose of concealing the Iranian parties’ financial activities and transactions from detection by US authorities. The complaint, brought by approximately 200 plaintiffs, alleges that this conspiracy has made it possible for Iran to transfer funds to Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations actively engaged in harming US military personnel and civilians. On July 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the EDNY against a number of banks, including Credit Suisse AG, alleging claims under the ATA. On September 14, 2016, Credit Suisse AG and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint in the EDNY. On September 16, 2019, the EDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On November 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On January 5, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Another lawsuit was filed on November 9, 2017 in the SDNY against a number of banks, including Credit Suisse AG, alleging claims under the ATA. On March 2, 2018, Credit Suisse AG and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. On March 28, 2019, the SDNY granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs cannot appeal the March 28, 2019 decision until the plaintiffs resolve their remaining claims, which remain pending, against an Iranian bank defendant that defaulted. On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, which the court denied on February 25, 2020, dismissing the case with prejudice as to Credit Suisse AG and the other moving bank defendants. On June 29, 2021, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to appeal the court’s February 25, 2020 decision.

In December 2018 and April 2019, six additional lawsuits were filed in the EDNY or SDNY against a number of banks, including Credit Suisse AG and, in two instances, Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch alleging claims under the ATA and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. These actions similarly allege a conspiracy between Iran and various international financial institutions, including the defendants, in which they agreed to alter, falsify or omit information from payment messages that involved

Iranian parties, and that this conspiracy made it possible for Iran to transfer funds to terrorist organizations actively engaged in harming US military personnel and civilians, and also assert ATA liability on an aiding and abetting theory. On January 6, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss two of the EDNY cases, which the EDNY granted on June 5, 2020, dismissing the cases as to Credit Suisse AG and most of the other bank defendants. Three of the cases have been stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in an unrelated ATA case, and in the remaining cases, the parties have jointly requested a similar stay.

Customer account matters

Several clients have claimed that a former relationship manager in Switzerland had exceeded his investment authority in the management of their portfolios, resulting in excessive concentrations of certain exposures and investment losses. Credit Suisse AG is investigating the claims, as well as transactions among the clients. Credit Suisse AG filed a criminal complaint against the former relationship manager with the Geneva Prosecutor’s Office upon which the prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation. Several clients of the former relationship manager also filed criminal complaints with the Geneva Prosecutor’s Office. On February 9, 2018, the former relationship manager was sentenced to five years in prison by the Geneva criminal court for fraud, forgery and criminal mismanagement and ordered to pay damages of approximately USD 130 million. Several parties have appealed the judgement. On June 26, 2019, the Criminal Court of Appeals of Geneva ruled in the appeal of the judgment against the former relationship manager, upholding the main findings of the Geneva criminal court. Several parties have appealed the decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. On February 19, 2020, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rendered its judgment on the appeals, substantially confirming the findings of the Criminal Court of Appeals of Geneva.

Civil lawsuits were initiated between August 7, 2017 and August 25, 2017 in the High Court of Singapore and the Supreme Court of Bermuda against Credit Suisse AG and/or certain affiliates, based on the findings established in the criminal proceedings against the former relationship manager.

In Singapore, on August 31, 2018, the civil lawsuit was stayed by an Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Singapore and plaintiffs appealed the decision. On January 18, 2019, the Singapore High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal and upheld the Assistant Registrar’s decision to stay the civil proceedings in Singapore. On April 29, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Singapore High Court only with respect to their action against Credit Suisse Trust Limited. On June 21, 2019, the plaintiffs discontinued their action against Credit Suisse AG. On July 3, 2020, the Singapore Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ appeal against Credit Suisse Trust Limited and lifted the stay of the civil proceedings, allowing the plaintiffs’ civil claim to proceed in the Singapore High Court. On July 10, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim in the Singapore High Court. On March 9, 2021, the Singapore High Court transferred the civil lawsuit to the Singapore International Commercial Court. On May 27, 2022, the Singapore International Commercial Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s application filed on March 30, 2022, to amend its statement of claim, allowing amendments that, among other things, introduce new allegations about Credit Suisse Trust Limited’s awareness of the former Credit Suisse AG employee’s wrongdoing and that certain employees of Credit Suisse AG and/or other Credit Suisse entities allegedly acted on behalf of Credit Suisse Trust Limited in relation to the administration of the trust. On July 1, 2022, Credit Suisse Trust Limited appealed the court’s decision with respect to the allowed amendments. The appeal was dismissed on August 11, 2022. Trial took place in September 2022, with closing submissions filed in November 2022 and closing arguments heard in February 2023.

In Bermuda, in the civil lawsuit brought against a Credit Suisse affiliate, trial took place in the Supreme Court of Bermuda in November and December 2021. The Supreme Court of Bermuda issued a first instance judgment on March 29, 2022, finding for the plaintiff. On May 6, 2022, the Supreme Court of Bermuda issued an order awarding damages of USD 607.35 million to the plaintiff. On May 9, 2022, Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) Ltd. appealed the decision to the Bermuda Court of Appeal. On July 25, 2022, the Supreme Court of Bermuda granted a stay of execution of its judgment pending appeal on the condition that damages awarded were paid into an escrow account within 42 days. Following satisfaction of the required condition, the Supreme Court of Bermuda granted a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.

FIFA-related matters

In connection with investigations by US government authorities into the involvement of financial institutions in the alleged bribery and corruption surrounding the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Credit Suisse received inquiries regarding its banking relationships with certain individuals and entities associated with FIFA, including but not limited to certain persons and entities named and/or described in the May 20, 2015 indictment and the November 25, 2015 superseding indictment filed by the EDNY US Attorney’s Office. The investigations encompassed whether multiple financial institutions, including Credit Suisse, permitted the processing of suspicious or otherwise improper transactions, or failed to observe anti-money laundering laws and regulations, with respect to the accounts of certain persons and entities associated with FIFA. Credit Suisse continues to cooperate with US authorities on this matter. As previously disclosed, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA (FINMA) announced the conclusion of its related investigation in 2018.

Israel Desk matters

Credit Suisse has received governmental and regulatory inquiries concerning cross-border services provided by Credit Suisse’s Switzerland-based Israel Desk. Credit Suisse is conducting a review of these issues and has been cooperating with the authorities.

Mozambique matter

Credit Suisse has been subject to investigations by regulatory and enforcement authorities, as well as civil litigation, regarding certain Credit Suisse entities’ arrangement of loan financing to Mozambique state enterprises, Proindicus S.A. and Empresa Mocambiacana de Atum S.A. (EMATUM), a distribution to private investors of loan participation notes (LPN) related to the EMATUM financing in September 2013, and certain Credit Suisse entities’ subsequent role in arranging the exchange of those LPNs for Eurobonds issued by the Republic of Mozambique. On January 3, 2019, the EDNY unsealed an indictment against several individuals in connection with the matter, including three former Credit Suisse employees. On May 20, 2019, July 19, 2019 and September 6, 2019, the three former employees pleaded guilty to accepting improper personal benefits in connection with financing transactions carried out with two Mozambique state enterprises.

On October 19, 2021, Credit Suisse reached settlements with the DOJ, the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and FINMA to resolve inquiries by these agencies. Credit Suisse Group AG entered into a three-year Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the DOJ in connection with the criminal information charging Credit Suisse Group AG with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and consented to the entry of a Cease and Desist Order by the SEC. Under the terms of the DPA, Credit Suisse Group AG will continue its compliance enhancement and remediation efforts, report to the DOJ on those efforts for three years and undertake additional measures as outlined in the DPA. Credit Suisse also agreed to pay a net penalty to the DOJ of approximately USD 175.5 million, which was payable following the conclusion of the sentencing process. If Credit Suisse Group AG adheres to the DPA’s conditions, the charges will be dismissed at the end of the DPA’s three-year term. In addition, CSSEL entered into a Plea Agreement and pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the US federal wire fraud statute. CSSEL will be bound by the same compliance, remediation and reporting obligations as Credit Suisse Group AG under the DPA. Under the terms of the SEC Cease and Desist Order, Credit Suisse paid a civil penalty of USD 65 million and approximately USD 34 million in disgorgement and pre-judgment interest in connection with violations of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the US Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) anti-fraud provisions (Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Securities Act Sections 17(a)(1), (2) and (3)) as well as the Exchange Act internal accounting controls and books and records provisions (Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B)). The total monetary sanctions paid to the DOJ and SEC, taking into account various credits and offsets, was approximately USD 275 million. Under the terms of the resolution with the DOJ, Credit Suisse was required to pay restitution to any eligible investors in the 2016 Eurobonds issued by the Republic of Mozambique. At a July 22, 2022 hearing, the EDNY approved the joint restitution proposal of the DOJ and Credit Suisse, under which Credit Suisse paid USD 22.6 million in restitution to eligible investors. At the hearing Credit Suisse was also ordered to pay, and subsequently paid, the USD 175.6 million net penalty set out in the DPA and Plea Agreement described above.

In the resolution with the FCA, CSSEL, Credit Suisse International (CSI) and Credit Suisse AG, London Branch agreed that, in respect of these transactions with Mozambique, its UK operations had failed to conduct business with due skill, care and diligence and to take reasonable care to organize and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems. Credit Suisse paid a penalty of approximately USD 200 million and has also agreed with the FCA to forgive USD 200 million of debt owed to Credit Suisse by Mozambique.

FINMA also entered a decree announcing the conclusion of its enforcement proceeding, finding that Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse (Schweiz) AG violated the duty to file a suspicious activity report in Switzerland, and Credit Suisse Group AG did not adequately manage and address the risks arising from specific sovereign lending and related securities transactions, and ordering the bank to remediate certain deficiencies. FINMA also arranged for certain existing transactions to be reviewed by the same independent third party on the basis of specific risk criteria, and required enhanced disclosure of certain sovereign transactions until all remedial measures have been satisfactorily implemented. Credit Suisse has completed implementation of the measures required under the FINMA decree. An independent third party appointed by FINMA is reviewing the implementation and effectiveness of these measures.

On February 27, 2019, certain Credit Suisse entities, the same three former employees, and several other unrelated entities were sued in the English High Court by the Republic of Mozambique. On January 21, 2020, the Credit Suisse entities filed their defense. On June 26, 2020, the Credit Suisse entities filed third-party claims against the project contractor and several Mozambique officials. The Republic of Mozambique filed an updated Particulars of Claim on October 27, 2020, and the Credit Suisse entities filed their amended defense and counterclaim on January 15, 2021. Following the announcement of the global regulatory resolution on October 19, 2021, Credit Suisse filed a re-amended defense on December 24, 2021. The Republic of Mozambique seeks a declaration that the sovereign guarantee issued in connection with the ProIndicus loan syndication arranged and funded, in part, by a Credit Suisse subsidiary is void and also seeks damages alleged to have arisen in connection with the transactions involving ProIndicus and EMATUM, and a transaction in which Credit Suisse had no involvement with Mozambique Asset Management S.A. Also on January 15, 2021,

the project contractor filed a cross claim against the Credit Suisse entities (as well as the three former Credit Suisse employees and various Mozambican officials) seeking an indemnity and/or contribution in the event that the contractor is found liable to the Republic of Mozambique. On August 4, 2022, the Republic of Mozambique filed an updated Particulars of Claim addressing Credit Suisse’s October 2021 resolutions with various regulatory and enforcement authorities, and framing its claim for consequential damages. On September 23, 2022, Credit Suisse filed its Re-Amended Defense in response. The English High Court has scheduled trial to begin in October 2023.

On April 27, 2020, Banco Internacional de Moçambique (BIM), a member of the ProIndicus syndicate, brought a claim against certain Credit Suisse entities seeking, contingent on the Republic of Mozambique’s claim, a declaration that Credit Suisse is liable to compensate it for alleged losses suffered as a result of any invalidity of the sovereign guarantee. The Credit Suisse entities filed their defense to this claim on August 28, 2020, to which BIM replied on October 16, 2020. Credit Suisse filed an amended defense on December 15, 2021, and BIM filed its amended reply on January 5, 2022.

On December 17, 2020, two members of the ProIndicus syndicate, Beauregarde Holdings LLP and Orobica Holdings LLC (B&O), filed a claim against certain Credit Suisse entities in respect of their interests in the ProIndicus loan, seeking unspecified damages stemming from the alleged loss suffered due to their reliance on representations made by Credit Suisse to the syndicate lenders. Credit Suisse filed their defense to this claim on February 24, 2021. On February 4, 2022, B&O filed an amended claim, and Credit Suisse filed an amended defense on February 18, 2022.

On June 3, 2021, United Bank for Africa PLC (UBA), a member of the ProIndicus syndicate, brought a claim against certain Credit Suisse entities seeking, contingent on the Republic of Mozambique’s claim, a declaration that Credit Suisse is liable to compensate it for alleged losses suffered as a result of any invalidity of the sovereign guarantee. The Credit Suisse entities filed their defense to this claim on July 1, 2021 and filed an amended defense on December 15, 2021, and UBA filed its amended reply on January 5, 2022.

On February 23, 2022, Privinvest Holding SAL (Privinvest), the parent company of certain entities involved in the Mozambique transactions, and its owner Iskandar Safa brought a defamation claim in a Lebanese court against CSSEL and Credit Suisse Group AG. The lawsuit alleges damage to the claimants’ professional reputation in Lebanon due to statements that were allegedly made by Credit Suisse in documents relating to the October 2021 settlements with global regulators. On August 18, 2022, the parties agreed to a stay of the proceedings until the date of the final judicial determination of the English High Court litigation, including any appeals, and on August 23, 2022, the parties filed an application for a stay with the Lebanese Court.

On November 2, 2022, Jean Boustani, a Privinvest employee who was the lead negotiator on behalf of Privinvest in relation to the Mozambique transactions, brought a defamation claim in a Lebanese court against Credit Suisse Group AG and CSSEL. The lawsuit makes substantially the same allegations as the claim described immediately above.

Cross-border private banking matters

Credit Suisse offices in various locations, including the UK, the Netherlands and France, have been contacted by regulatory and law enforcement authorities that are seeking records and information concerning investigations into our historical private banking services on a cross-border basis and in part through our local branches and banks. A similar inquiry has been opened in Belgium. Credit Suisse has conducted a review of these issues, the UK aspects of which have been closed with no action being taken against the bank, and is continuing to cooperate with the authorities. Credit Suisse applies a strict zero tolerance policy on tax evasion.

On October 21, 2022, Credit Suisse AG entered into a settlement agreement with the Parquet National Financier to resolve a French investigation into alleged aiding and abetting of tax fraud, aggravated money laundering and illegal cross border market access. As part of the settlement, Credit Suisse AG agreed to pay a public interest fine of EUR 123 million, comprising EUR 65.6 million in disgorgement of profits and an additional amount of EUR 57.4 million. In addition, Credit Suisse AG agreed to pay EUR 115 million to the French state as damages. In prior quarters, Credit Suisse had taken litigation provisions totaling CHF 159 million related to this matter. On October 24, 2022, the competent French judge approved this agreement. No admission of wrongdoing was required in connection with the agreement, including no recognition of criminal liability by Credit Suisse.

ETN-related litigation

XIV litigation

Since March 14, 2018, three class action complaints were filed in the SDNY on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes linked to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index due December 4, 2030 (XIV ETNs). On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, naming Credit Suisse Group AG and certain affiliates and executives, which asserts claims for violations of Sections 9(a)(4), 9(f), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Sections 11 and 15 of the US Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that the defendants are responsible for losses to investors following a decline in the value of XIV ETNs on February 5, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on November 2, 2018. On September 25, 2019, the SDNY granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice all claims against the defendants. On October 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On April 27, 2021, the Second Circuit issued

an order affirming in part and vacating in part the SDNY’s September 25, 2019 decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. On July 1, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On June 3, 2019, Credit Suisse AG, an affiliate and executives were named in a separate individual action brought in the SDNY by a purchaser of XIV ETNs, which asserts claims similar to those brought in the consolidated class action complaint as well as additional claims under New York and Pennsylvania state law. On March 30, 2022, the SDNY issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DGAZ litigation

On January 6, 2022, Credit Suisse AG was named in a class action complaint filed in the SDNY brought on behalf of a putative class of short sellers of VelocityShares 3x Inverse Natural Gas Exchange Traded Notes linked to the S&P GSCI Natural Gas Index ER due February 9, 2032 (DGAZ ETNs). The complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and alleges that Credit Suisse is responsible for losses suffered by short sellers following a June 2020 announcement that Credit Suisse would delist and suspend further issuances of the DGAZ ETNs. On July 11, 2022, Credit Suisse AG filed a motion to dismiss.

TWINT

On November 13, 2018, COMCO announced an investigation into several Swiss financial institutions, including UBS Switzerland AG, Credit Suisse (Schweiz) AG, Aduno Holding AG, PostFinance AG, and Swisscard AECS GmbH. According to COMCO, its investigation is focused on whether these institutions entered into an agreement to boycott mobile payment solutions of international providers, including Apple Pay and Samsung Pay, in order to protect TWINT, their own Swiss payment solution.

SWM

CSI was the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the German public utility company Stadtwerke München GmbH (SWM) in a German court, in connection with a series of interest rate swaps entered into between 2008 and 2012. The claimant alleged breach of an advisory duty to provide both investor- and investment-specific advice, including in particular a duty to disclose the initial mark-to-market value of the trades at inception. In March 2022, after the parties reached a settlement, for which Credit Suisse was fully reserved, the court discontinued the lawsuit.

Bulgarian former clients matter

Credit Suisse AG has been responding to an investigation by the Swiss Office of the Attorney General (SOAG) concerning the diligence and controls applied to a historical relationship with Bulgarian former clients who are alleged to have laundered funds through Credit Suisse AG accounts. On December 17, 2020, the SOAG brought charges against Credit Suisse AG and other parties. Credit Suisse AG believes its diligence and controls complied with applicable legal requirements and intends to defend itself vigorously. The trial in the Swiss Federal Criminal Court took place in the first quarter of 2022. On June 27, 2022, Credit Suisse AG was convicted in the Swiss Federal Criminal Court of certain historical organizational inadequacies in its anti-money laundering framework and ordered to pay a fine of CHF 2 million. In addition, the court seized certain client assets in the amount of approximately CHF 12 million and ordered Credit Suisse AG to pay a compensatory claim in the amount of approximately CHF 19 million. On July 5, 2022, Credit Suisse AG appealed the decision to the Swiss Federal Court of Appeals.

SCFF

Credit Suisse has received requests for documents and information in connection with inquiries, investigations, enforcement and other actions relating to the supply chain finance funds (SCFF) matter by FINMA, the FCA and other regulatory and governmental agencies. The Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier is reviewing the matter through a third party. Credit Suisse is cooperating with these authorities.

On February 28, 2023, FINMA announced the conclusion of its enforcement proceedings against Credit Suisse in connection with the SCFF matter. In its order, FINMA reported that Credit Suisse had seriously breached applicable Swiss supervisory laws in this context with regard to risk management and appropriate operational structures. While FINMA recognized that Credit Suisse has already taken extensive organizational measures based on its own investigation into the SCFF matter, particularly to strengthen its governance and control processes, and FINMA is supportive of these measures, the regulator has ordered certain additional remedial measures. These include a requirement that the most important (approximately 500) business relationships must be reviewed periodically and holistically at the Executive Board level, in particular for counterparty risks, and that Credit Suisse must set up a document defining the responsibilities of approximately 600 of its highest-ranking managers. FINMA will appoint an audit officer to assess compliance with these supervisory measures. Separate from the enforcement proceeding regarding Credit Suisse, FINMA has opened four enforcement proceedings against former managers of Credit Suisse.

Certain civil actions have been filed by fund investors and other parties against Credit Suisse and/or certain officers and directors in various jurisdictions, which make allegations including mis-selling and breaches of duties of care, diligence and other fiduciary duties. Certain investors and other private parties have also filed criminal complaints against Credit Suisse and other parties in connection with this matter.

As this matter develops, Credit Suisse may become subject to additional litigation and regulatory inquiries, investigations and actions.

Archegos

Credit Suisse has received requests for documents and information in connection with inquiries, investigations and/or actions relating to Credit Suisse’s relationship with Archegos Capital Management (Archegos), including from FINMA (assisted by a third party appointed by FINMA), the DOJ, the SEC, the US Federal Reserve, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the US Senate Banking Committee, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the FCA, COMCO, the Hong Kong Competition Commission and other regulatory and governmental agencies. Credit Suisse is cooperating with the authorities in these matters.

On November 23, 2022, the US Federal Reserve communicated its intention to progress its investigation of Credit Suisse in relation to Archegos through a resolution that includes monetary penalties and certain remedial measures. The resolution of this matter is subject to ongoing dialogue with the US Federal Reserve and other regulators.

On April 16, 2021, Credit Suisse Group AG and certain current and former executives were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the SDNY by a holder of Credit Suisse American Depositary Receipts, asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, alleging that defendants violated US securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Credit Suisse’s risk management practices, including with respect to the Archegos matter. On September 16, 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle all claims. On December 23, 2022, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval to the parties’ agreement to settle all claims. The settlement remains subject to final court approval.

Additional civil actions relating to Credit Suisse’s relationship with Archegos have been filed against Credit Suisse and/or certain officers and directors, including claims for breaches of fiduciary duties.

As this matter develops, Credit Suisse may become subject to additional litigation and regulatory inquiries, investigations, and actions.

Communications recordkeeping matter

On September 27, 2022, the SEC and the CFTC announced the entry of orders filing and settling charges with several financial institutions, including Credit Suisse, in connection with civil investigations concerning compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications sent over unapproved electronic messaging channels. The SEC found that CSS LLC failed to maintain and preserve off-channel communications its employees sent and received on personal devices related to the broker-dealer’s business and failed to implement policies and procedures designed to prohibit such communications, thereby leading to CSS LLC’s failure to reasonably supervise its employees. CSS LLC paid a civil monetary penalty of USD 125 million to the SEC. The CFTC found similar recordkeeping and supervisory failures for CSS LLC, as a futures commission merchant, and CSI, as a swap dealer. CSS LLC and CSI paid a combined civil monetary penalty of USD 75 million to the CFTC. In addition to the monetary penalties, Credit Suisse was ordered to cease and desist from future violations of the relevant recordkeeping provisions, was censured, admitted to the facts in the SEC and CFTC orders and agreed to certain undertakings, including, among other things, the use of an independent compliance consultant to review the bank’s policies and procedures relating to the retention of electronic communications found on personal devices and the related framework for addressing non-compliance by employees.