Note 21

Litigation

UBS Group operates in a legal and regulatory environment that exposes it to potentially significant litigation risks. As a result, UBS is involved in various disputes and legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration, and regulatory and criminal investigations. Such cases are subject to many uncertainties, and their outcome is often difficult to predict, particularly in the earlier stages of a case. In certain circumstances, to avoid the expense and distraction of legal proceedings, UBS may, based on a cost-benefit analysis, enter a settlement even though UBS denies any wrongdoing. The Group makes provisions for cases brought against it only when after seeking legal advice, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a liability exists, and the amount can be reasonably estimated (see table above). No provision is made for claims asserted against the Group that in the opinion of management are without merit and where it is not likely that UBS will be found liable.

Currently, UBS is responding to a number of regulatory inquiries and investigations, and is involved in a number of litigations and disputes, related to the sub-prime crisis, subprime securities, and structured transactions involving subprime securities. These matters concern, among other things, UBS's valuations, disclosures, write-downs, underwriting, and contractual obligations.

At 31 December 2007, UBS is involved in the following legal proceedings which could be material to the Group in a given reporting period:

a) Tax Shelter: In connection with a criminal investigation of tax shelters, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("US Attorney's Office") is examining UBS's conduct in relation to certain tax-oriented transactions in which UBS and others engaged during the years 1996–2000. Some of these transactions were the subject of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement which the accounting firm KPMG LLP entered into with the US Attorney's Office in August 2005, and are at issue in United States v. Stein, S1 05 Cr. 888 (LAK). UBS is cooperating in the government's investigation.

b) Municipal Bonds: In November 2006, UBS and others received subpoenas from the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and the SEC relating to derivative transactions entered into with municipal bond issuers and to the investment of proceeds of municipal bond issuances. Both investigations are ongoing, and UBS is cooperating. In the SEC investigation, on 4 February 2008, UBS received a "Wells notice" advising that the SEC staff is considering recommending that the SEC bring a civil action against UBS AG in connection with the bidding of various financial instruments associated with municipal securities. Under the SEC's Wells process, UBS will have the opportunity to set forth reasons of law, policy or fact why such an action should not be brought.

c) HealthSouth: UBS is defending itself in two purported securities class actions brought in the US District Court of the Northern District of Alabama by holders of stock and bonds in HealthSouth Corp. UBS also is a defendant in HealthSouth derivative litigation in Alabama State Court and has responded to an SEC investigation relating to UBS's role as a banker for HealthSouth.

d) Parmalat: UBS is involved in a number of proceedings in Italy related to the bankruptcy of Parmalat. These proceedings include, inter alia, clawback proceedings against UBS Limited in connection with a structured finance transaction. Further, UBS is a defendant in two civil damages claims brought by Parmalat, one of which relates to the same structured finance transaction against UBS Limited, while the other against UBS AG relates to certain derivative transactions. In addition, UBS Limited and one current and one former UBS employee are the subject of criminal proceedings in Milan. UBS AG and UBS Limited are defendants in civil actions brought by Parmalat investors in parallel with the criminal proceedings in Milan. Furthermore, four current or former UBS employees are defendants in relation to criminal proceedings in Parma. Civil claims have also been recently filed in parallel with the criminal proceedings by Parmalat against the individuals and UBS Limited and also by Parmalat investors against the individuals, UBS AG and UBS Limited. UBS AG and UBS Limited deny the allegations made against them and against the individuals in these matters and are vigorously defending themselves in these proceedings.

e) Insight One: In early July 2007, UBS agreed to a settlement of the InsightOne case after the New York State Attorney General filed a civil complaint regarding UBS's fee-based brokerage program for private clients in the United States in December 2006. UBS denied that the program was part of a scheme to disadvantage clients, but chose to settle to bring the proceedings to an end. Under the settlement, UBS paid a total of USD 23.3 million, of which USD 21.3 million was paid to certain current and former InsightOne customers pursuant to an agreed-upon remediation plan, and USD 2 million was paid in penalties. In 2006, UBS established provisions sufficient to cover the settlement, and therefore the settlement did not impact UBS's Net profit in 2007.

f) Bankruptcy Estate of Enron: In June 2007, UBS and Enron settled adversarial proceedings in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York brought by Enron to avoid and recover payments made prior to filing for bankruptcy in connection with equity forward and swap transactions. UBS believed it had valid defences to all of Enron's claims, but chose to settle to eliminate the uncertainty created by the proceeding. Under the terms of the settlement, UBS paid Enron USD 115 million and waived a proof of claim for approximately USD 5.5 million that UBS filed in Enron's bankruptcy case. In 2006, UBS recognized a provision for more than half of the settlement amount, with the difference recognized in 2007. Therefore, the settlement did not materially impact UBS's Net profit in 2007.