backOn February 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a non-precedential summary order affirming the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of a Credit Suisse shareholder claim against U.S.-based affiliates of Credit Suisse, certain Credit Suisse officers and directors, Credit Suisse’s purported auditor, KPMG LLP, and certain KPMG LLP employees, partners, and related individuals on forum non conveniens grounds, holding that Switzerland is an adequate forum and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the dispute is overwhelmingly Swiss in nature.
In the underlying matter, Plaintiffs asserted two claims under RICO and one claim against all defendants for breach of statutory duties to shareholders under Swiss law. As we previously reported in the February 16, 2024 Auditor Liability Bulletin, Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs (i) lacked standing, (ii) failed to adequately allege a RICO enterprise, and (iii) failed to adequately allege KPMG LLP’s involvement in any racketeering activity—noting that KPMG LLP did not conduct the relevant audits of Credit Suisse. Judge McMahon also dismissed the Swiss-law claim on forum non conveniens grounds without prejudice to refiling in Switzerland. Plaintiffs appealed only the forum non conveniens dismissal of the Swiss-law claim.
The Second Circuit reviewed the ruling for abuse of discretion, applying the Circuit’s familiar three-step framework: (1) degree of deference to the plaintiff’s forum choice, (2) adequacy of the alternative forum, and (3) balancing of private and public interests. The Court found no abuse of discretion because, despite some nexus to New York, the conduct at issue and the dispute were overwhelmingly Swiss in nature. The Court also agreed that Switzerland is an adequate forum notwithstanding the unavailability of class procedures, jury trial, or plaintiffs’ asserted financial hardship, explaining those considerations bear on convenience or tactical advantage, and not on whether the forum is available or adequate. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in balancing the Supreme Court’s Gulf Oil private and public interest factors and finding that the interests of justice favor litigation in Switzerland.
The case is Stevenson v. Thornburgh, case number 24-1788. Plaintiffs-Appellants were represented by Bathaee Dunne LLP, Bottini & Bottini Inc., and Alfred G. Yates Jr. PC. The defendants-appellees are represented by Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Ballard Spahr LLP, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Brown Rudnick LLP. The Second Circuit order is attached.