Page 2 of 2

In 2017, France even introduced a legal procedure copied from the U.S. It intended to use for the first time on UBS: a convention judiciaire d'intérêt public or CJIP, can be used in cases of corruption, tax fraud or money-laundering and allows firms to reach regulatory settlements without the risk of a court trial or admitting any wrong-doing.

But UBS was wary that such a deal could open the door for demands from other countries. From then on, both sides hardened their stance – ending in the disastrous judgment for UBS in February and the no-confidence vote this week.

No Settlement Possible?

The February ruling raised questions over whether UBS had miscalculated in adopting a gutsy strategy orchestrated by CEO Ermotti and legal brain Markus Diethelm, as finews.asia wrote in February. This week's vote shows that shareholders also have questions – and that UBS has lost control of the situation.

Weber's response to the no-confidence vote implicitly acknowledges this: «In our view, the trial in France did not show in any way that UBS failed to comply with the regulations that applied at the time in France and Switzerland. As I already stated in my speech, it was not possible to reach an acceptable out-of-court settlement in the France case.»

If the uncertainty linked to the French case was mainly born by shareholders until now, the pain now extends to UBS board and management, which might be held accountable for their handling of the case in years to come.