Amina Bank Fails to Block Publication of Potential Deal, Court Rejects Urgent Injunction
A Zurich Commercial court has rejected an urgent request from Amina Bank, a Finma-licensed crypto institute, to prevent the publication of information regarding a possibly significant business deal. The bank’s attempt to stifle reporting underscores the growing tension between financial institutions and the media in the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency landscape.
The legal battle began in the early hours of the morning, with a request sent to the bank’s PR agency at 2:30 a.m. After hours of silence, a representative from the agency issued a denial at 3:39 p.m., stating, “All Such Speculation … Are false.” The agency then demanded a commitment from the media outlet, identified as “IP,” not to publish the story by 4:00 p.m. Central European Time.
The bank, formerly known as Seba and once noted for its association with extravagant displays of wealth – including “golden toilet owners” – escalated the situation swiftly. After its initial request was not met, Amina Bank engaged the Zurich-based Bratschi law firm, which filed an “application for super provision against the media” with the Commercial Court that same evening. The application, marked “Urgent,” argued that publication would cause “immediate, severe and not easily resumed reputation damage.”
However, the judge presiding over the case found the bank’s claims insufficient. According to the court’s assessment, IP had only presented “a presumption” – or, as the judge clarified, “a ‘rumor’.” The judge reasoned that because the information was not presented as a definitive fact, the bank’s denial lacked credibility in establishing unfair or personally damaging representation.
Furthermore, the court deemed the 21-minute deadline imposed on IP – requiring a response via email by 4:00 p.m.- as “inappropriate.”
“The urgency request is rejected,” the judge concluded. Despite the rejection, IP is still required to respond to the bank’s application by october 15th, indicating the legal dispute is far from over. This case highlights the challenges faced by media outlets reporting on sensitive financial matters, especially within the emerging crypto sector, and the lengths to which institutions will go to control the narrative.
Why did this happen? Amina Bank attempted to suppress a media report concerning a potential business deal.The bank feared reputational damage if the information, which it characterized as speculation, became public. Who was involved? Amina Bank (formerly Seba), the media outlet “IP,” the Bratschi law firm, and the Zurich Commercial Court were the key players. What was the core issue? The dispute centered on whether IP’s reporting constituted a damaging misrepresentation of facts, warranting an injunction. How did it end? The court rejected Amina Bank’s urgent request for an injunction, finding the bank’s claims unsubstantiated and the deadline imposed on the media outlet unreasonable. however, the legal battle isn’t over, as IP must still respond to the bank’s application by October 15th.
