The Council of States today is debating the controversial UBS accord signed between Switzerland and the United States last August. Switzerland agreed to hand over details of some 4,500 UBS clients suspected of tax evasion. In return, the U.S. agreed to lift the threat of legal action against the bank. Three of the country’s main parties have now rallied behind the deal, but the centre-left Social Democrats are still threatening to call a referendum on the issue.

To  examine both sides of the issue WRS called on Martin Naville, president of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, who believes the UBS deal should be approved, and lawyer Michel Halpérin, a fierce opponent of the accord:

Attacks on banking secrecy appear to be fueling interest in new financial products. Among them: Private Placement Life Insurance, also known as “insurance wrappers.”

They allow banks to manage assets at low tax rates and with no way of identifying the owner. By all indications, business in “insurance wrappers” is booming.

But Swiss regulators are warning banks and insurance companies they could be playing with fire. Lucas Chambers has the story:

“Go back to your golf course”… “Each Swiss paid you a thousand francs”… UBS heads Kaspar Villiger and Oswald Grübel have had to sit through a lot of anger today, but they were greeted with applause when they praised the group’s employees for their hard work in getting the bank back on track. The UBS annual general meeting has been taking place in Basel at a packed Sankt-Jakob’s Halle.

And the most controversial item is still on the table: The current management team wants to discharge the executives who presided over the most disastrous period in UBS’s history from 2007 to 2009. Earlier they approved the bank’s compensation package for last year despite criticisms of the size of the bonuses.

WRS’s Conor Lennon calls on our reporter Vincent Landon who is at the meeting:

Tomorrow’s UBS annual general meeting promises to be a turbulent and nail-biting one for the bank’s board. Shareholders will get to decide whether former executives and board members from 2007—2009 should be discharged of their responsibilities.

Essentially, a “yes” vote would see the likes of former chairman Marcel Ospel absolved of any blame for leading the banking giant bank into deep trouble. Ospel was among those who held the reins as the bank lost almost 30 billion francs when the bubble burst on the subprime mortgage crisis.  

So which way will the vote go? WRS’s Adam Beaumont spoke to Peter Kunz, a professor of business law at Bern University: