Author: Joe L. White, Jr
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
To preemptively and respectfully rebut anticipated legal and factual defenses Nexo AG may raise in response to this conciliation filing. This annex is based on my firsthand experience, post-liquidation research, and legal consultation. It is submitted in the interest of procedural clarity and fair engagement.
Anticipated Defense 1: “User Accepted Margin Risk Terms”
Claimed Position:
Nexo may argue that margin risk was disclosed in its general terms and conditions and that all users, including me, accepted those terms upon onboarding.
Rebuttal:
At no point during onboarding or daily use did Nexo clearly present this account as a margin-based or leveraged product. There were no explicit, interactive warnings, no margin opt-in checkbox, and no explanation of liquidation triggers. As someone with a visceral lifelong fear of margin products formed during my experience managing client portfolios in the 1987 crash, I would never knowingly choose a margin account. The omission of these critical risks constitutes non-transparent disclosure under FinSA and violates standards of informed consent.
Anticipated Defense 2: “Disclosures Were Provided via General Terms”
Claimed Position:
Nexo may assert that all risks and features were described in general platform documents or legal terms.
Rebuttal:
General terms do not substitute for clear, contextual risk disclosure in the product interface. Swiss consumer law, especially the Unfair Competition Act (UCA), prohibits burying material risk behind legalistic language. Nexo presented itself as a “bank alternative,” safe and secure, which established a consumer expectation inconsistent with what was delivered. This mismatch between marketing and technical design creates legal and reputational risk.
Anticipated Defense 3: “Client Was Sophisticated and Knew the Risks”
Claimed Position:
Nexo may argue that as a former executive in fintech and security, I was sophisticated and capable of understanding the platform structure.
Rebuttal:
Professional experience does not override platform responsibility for risk communication. I was not a crypto investor or trader and had zero experience trading on margin. I sought a passive, interest-bearing store of value based on what Nexo presented. Sophistication is irrelevant when fundamental risk attributes like liquidation mechanics are never shown in the interface or communicated in account-level disclosures. Swiss investor protection laws apply equally to all consumers, regardless of resume.
Anticipated Defense 4: “Nexo Is a Cayman Entity, Outside Swiss Jurisdiction”
Claimed Position:
Nexo may claim its legal entity and terms are governed under Cayman law, limiting Swiss enforcement.
Rebuttal:
The entity at issue, Nexo AG, is Swiss-based, operates on Swiss soil and marketed from Switzerland. The public presence, operational communications, and customer confidence rely on Swiss jurisdiction and regulatory credibility. Furthermore, Swiss courts retain jurisdiction over Swiss companies offering services from Swiss soil. To the extent Nexo AG benefited from its Swiss identity, it cannot now disclaim the obligations that come with it.
Statement of Intent
This annex is submitted in support of a good-faith civil conciliation request under ZPO Art. 202–204. The claimant asserts that the conduct described herein warrants regulatory attention and damages due to misrepresentation and unsupervised financial intermediation. No proprietary platform information is disclosed, and all references are based on claimant usage, public materials, and industry guidelines.
Disclaimer
This document is submitted in good faith, based solely on the claimant’s personal experience and publicly available facts. No confidential or privileged information has been disclosed. All statements reflect the claimant’s beliefs or recollections unless otherwise indicated. Names of third parties are anonymized or redacted where not publicly implicated. The purpose of this release is transparency, accountability, and resolution not defamation or harm.
Legal Context Note
This annex was authored solely by the claimant as part of a lawful civil conciliation filing under Articles 202–204 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (ZPO). It does not contain any confidential statements made during the conciliation hearing, nor does it disclose settlement terms or other protected materials governed by ZPO Art. 205.
The annex is based exclusively on:
- Personal experience,
- Publicly available information, or
- Facts the claimant is legally entitled to share.
Its purpose is to document the legal and factual basis for the claimant’s grievance, promote transparency, and serve the public interest where legal oversight may be insufficient.
The annex adheres to Swiss privacy and defamation standards under ZGB Art. 28, the Data Protection Act (DSG), and applicable banking/professional secrecy provisions (BankG, StGB Art. 321).
It is not an official court document, and no information disclosed herein was obtained through the hearing process.