A U.S. federal judge has rebuffed a request from UBS to narrow exposure under a landmark 1999 settlement that compensated victims of Holocaust-era banking practices. In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in Brooklyn declined to modify the agreement that required Swiss banks to pay $1.25 billion to victims and their families.
Judge Korman characterized UBS’s proposal as seeking an advisory ruling to shield the bank from claims that do not yet exist. "Until a genuine case or controversy arises that requires judicial interpretation of its terms, the agreement will continue to speak for itself," he wrote, according to the court record.
The settlement originally involved payments by UBS and Credit Suisse that were distributed to more than 458,000 Nazi victims and their relatives. UBS pursued the court action after a probe commissioned in 2020 by the former Credit Suisse revealed additional connections between that bank, its predecessors and entities tied to the Third Reich, including a listing of 890 accounts with potential Nazi links.
Legal advocates opposed to UBS’s request argued the bank’s approach would improperly broaden the scope of the 1999 agreement to cover facts that have come to light since the settlement was finalized. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization, objected to UBS’s proposed expansion, saying the modification would encompass newly uncovered information about the banks’ dealings during the Nazi era.
Neither UBS nor the lawyers for the Simon Wiesenthal Center provided immediate responses to requests for comment on the ruling, according to court filings.
The matter gained additional practical context after UBS acquired Credit Suisse in 2023 through a Swiss government-arranged emergency takeover. UBS sought judicial clarification following the investigation into Credit Suisse’s historical accounts, but the judge found no present legal basis to alter the earlier settlement absent an actual lawsuit invoking its terms.
The court’s decision leaves intact the 1999 settlement language and indicates that future disputes tied to newly uncovered evidence would need to be brought as concrete cases before the court will interpret or adjust the agreement’s scope.