Skip to content

Weaponizing Procedure: How Legal Formalism Harms Elderly Claimants - Case 2025-000001

Strict procedural formalism can be exploited to delay, deny, or exhaust vulnerable claimants—especially elderly investors. This article exposes how legal tools meant to ensure fairness are turned against those least equipped to withstand delay.

Table of Contents

Case: 2025-000001
Respondents: Nexo AG; FINMA; U.S. SEC
Dossier: /case-2025-000001/
All posts: /tag/case-2025-000001/
Status: Open
Last updated: October 3, 2025

When legal systems prioritize form over substance, they risk betraying the very principles of justice they were designed to uphold. For elderly claimants, this isn’t just a philosophical risk — it’s a lived reality.

In investor-related litigation — especially involving cross-border misconduct — delay is not neutral. It is a tactic. By drawing out proceedings or insisting on excessive formalities (redundant power-of-attorney forms, jurisdictional maneuvering, or conciliation rituals), well-resourced adversaries weaponize procedure against vulnerable individuals.

For retirement-age investors, time is not abstract. The legal process can outlast financial viability, physical health, or even life expectancy. When a claim’s success depends not just on legal merit but on a claimant’s ability to survive the process, justice is no longer blind — it becomes complicit.

Case in Point: Nexo AG and Procedural Obstruction

In several recent matters, legal counsel for Nexo AG has demanded irregular power-of-attorney (PoA) language — not to confirm representation, but to manipulate forum selection and obstruct basic communication.

Such tactics may pass legal muster. But are they just?

When Swiss counsel refuse to recognize a standardized PoA issued under Swiss Bar Association rules — solely because the claimant refuses to sign away jurisdictional rights — we must ask:
Is the system protecting investors, or shielding abusers?

Reform Must Begin with Recognition

Swiss jurisprudence prides itself on neutrality and the rule of law. But law is only as fair as its application. Courts, funders, and legal institutions must recognize when procedural formality mutates into procedural suppression.

The solution is not to dismantle legal process — but to balance it with urgency, proportionality, and ethical review, especially in cases involving elderly or structurally disadvantaged parties.

Otherwise, justice delayed is justice denied — systematically.

Comments

Latest

Share your
story
Investor
Red Flag
Database

Disclaimer

The information presented on InvestorJustice.org is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.

InvestorJustice.org is an independent public-interest research and education platform and does not offer individualized guidance, professional services, or endorsements.

Readers should consult qualified legal or financial professionals before making investment or regulatory decisions.

Our mission is transparency and accountability — not advocacy for any commercial entity.