Banking StandardsLetter on behalf of Alex Wilmot-Sitwell from Mark Humphries Legal

Letter relating to Question 2241

We acknowledge receipt of the transcript of proceedings for 10 January 2013 and now write with comments and corrections on behalf of Alex Wilmot-Sitwell.

The following comment is of a general nature but it also relates specifically to Question 2241:

Mr Wilmot-Sitwell was not asked questions during his evidence about his role and responsibilities and was therefore never given the opportunity to explain his role to the Commission. By this letter he therefore takes the opportunity to provide that explanation.

UBS, like many banks, has both private side and public side businesses. Prior to becoming co-CEO of UBS Investment Bank, Mr Wilmot-Sitwell worked exclusively on the private (rather than the public) side of the business and therefore had no responsibility for the part of the business in which the LIBOR manipulation occurred (namely, the public side). Neither did he exercise any supervisory role in relation to that part of the business during that time.

Following his appointment as co-CEO of the investment bank in May 2009, Mr Wilmot-Sitwell worked jointly with Carsten Kengeter. Mr Wilmot-Sitwell dealt with the private side of the business by way of an allocation of functions between the co-CEOs. With regard to issues of concern arising on the public side of the business, Mr Wilmot-Sitwell was reliant on those issues being escalated to his attention, since he was not involved in the day to-day management of the public side businesses. For the reasons that were very clearly explained in the evidence given to the Commission, none of the four former UBS CEOs who gave evidence to the Commission was made aware of the LIBOR manipulation at the time. In relation to himself, Mr Wilmot-Sitwell made this clear in his answer to Question 2230.

At Question 2241 when the Chair said: “Do any of you want to challenge any of that?” it was unclear to the witnesses at the time whether a question was being asked, not least because the hearing moved on immediately to a question about a different topic. The consequence of this is that it has been mis-reported that the witnesses acknowledged that they were incompetent. For the avoidance of further misunderstanding, we take this opportunity to clarify that Mr Wilmot-Sitwell does not accept any suggestion of any incompetence or negligence.

Mr Wilmot-Sitwell stepped down as co-CEO of the investment bank in September 2010.

We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing which was kindly provided to us. We would like to make the following corrections on behalf of Mr Wilmot-Sitwell:

1.With respect to Question 2202 on page 30 of the transcript, the transcript indicates that Mr Wilmot-Sitwell responded “yes” to the question; however, the question was put to all of the witnesses and the answer was actually provided by Huw Jenkins.

2.With respect to Question 2203, on page 30 of the transcript, the transcript states that Mr Wilmot-Sitwell indicated assent to the statement in the question; however, Mr Wilmot-Sitwell did not respond to this question before the questioner moved on to the next question.

If there is anything in our corrections above which is unclear, please do not hesitate to contact us.

18 January 2013