A US federal judge has declined to rule on a dispute between Swiss multinational investment bank UBS and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) over the scope of a landmark 1999 Holocaust-era settlement with Swiss banks, finding no active legal case to decide.
As background, in the late 1990s, Holocaust victims sued Swiss banks (like Credit Suisse). The plaintiffs argued that the banks and their predecessor institutions collaborated with the Nazi regime by refusing to return assets belonging to victims of Nazi persecution, processing assets looted from victims of Nazi persecution, and profiting from the use of slave labor.
The case was settled in 1999, with the agreement that the banks would pay money to the victims, and in return, the victims and 17 listed Jewish organizations (including SWC) agreed not to sue again or make claims regarding those issues.
The specific text says the organizations must promise “not to make any public statement or take any action that would violate or be inconsistent with this endorsement” and “not to sue, call for suits against, or support suits against any Swiss entity released by the Settlement Agreement based on conduct covered by the settlement.”
The judge kept ongoing authority to enforce that agreement if needed.
More recently, the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused Credit Suisse – now owned by UBS – of hiding more Nazi-related assets. Fearing that SWC might open a new lawsuit, thus violating the 1999 agreement, UBS turned to the court for clarification in 2023.
Specifically, UBS wanted the courts to issue a ruling clarifying what the old settlement means, essentially confirming that the SWC cannot raise new accusations or seek more money. Until this point, mediation has failed.
Judge: Disagreement 'insufficient by itself'
However, in a decision issued Monday, Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York rejected UBS’s request for clarification of the agreement, saying he could not rule on what would happen if SWC sues UBS, as SWC has not sued UBS and there is no open lawsuit.
“There is little doubt that UBS and SWC have been at odds with one another in recent years, yet “[t]he presence of a disagreement, however sharp and acrimonious it may be, is insufficient by itself” to create a case or controversy,” Korman wrote.
The ruling leaves the Simon Wiesenthal Center in a relatively flexible position in the short term, as the court declined to issue any interpretation of the 1999 settlement or to restrict its conduct. In more practical terms, this means SWC is not currently barred from continuing its public statements, advocacy, or efforts to raise new allegations regarding Nazi-linked assets.
At the same time, the court did not endorse SWC’s position or find that its actions are permitted under the settlement, leaving the underlying dispute unresolved.
The judge made clear that the court would intervene only in the context of a concrete case or enforcement action, effectively allowing UBS to still challenge SWC if it chooses to formally pursue enforcement of the agreement.
UBS is the largest Swiss banking institution and the world’s largest private bank.