BPCE - 2018 Registration document

RISK REPORT Legal risks

EDA – SELCODIS On June 18, 2013, through two separate complaints, Selcodis and EDA brought proceedings before the Commercial Court of Paris against Compagnie Européenne de Garanties et Cautions for the sudden termination of commercial relations following the refusal by the latter to grant EDA a guarantee. Through two new complaints filed on November 20, 2013, Selcodis and EDA also brought claims before the Commercial Court of Paris against Natixis, BRED and CEGC for unlawful agreements, alleging that such actions led to the refusal by CEGC to grant a guarantee to EDA and to the termination of various loans by BRED. Selcodis is asking for compensation for the losses purportedly suffered as a result of the court-ordered liquidation of its EDA subsidiary, and is requesting that the defendants be ordered to pay damages and interest, which it assesses to be € 32 million. For its part, EDA is requesting that the defendants be ordered to bear the asset shortfall in its entirety, with its amount being calculated by the court-appointed receiver. Natixis and CEGC consider all of these claims to be unfounded. On December 6, 2018, the Commercial Court of Paris, after the joining of cases, ruled that the statute of limitations had been reached and the cases are now closed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against this ruling in January 2019. MPS FOUNDATION In June 2014, MPS Foundation (Fondazione Monte dei Paschi di Siena), an Italian foundation, filed a claim against 11 banks, including Natixis, which granted it financing in 2011 at the request of its previous officers, on the grounds that the financing thus granted was in violation of its bylaws, which state that MPS Foundation cannot hold debt exceeding 20% of its total balance sheet. The damages claimed by MPS Foundation against the banks and former directors amount to € 285 million. Natixis considers these accusations to be unfounded. Following an objection as to jurisdiction, the Tribunal of Siena referred the case to the Tribunal of Florence on February 23, 2016. The case is still in progress before the Tribunal of Florence.

Committee found a number of failings concerning the redemption fees charged to funds and structuring margins. Natixis IM International is mounting a rigorous defense against this decision and has filed an appeal with the French Council of State. The case is still in progress. In addition, UFC-QUE CHOISIR, in its capacity as a consumer rights non-profit, brought claims before the Paris District Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) on March 5, 2018, against the asset management company to obtain compensation for the financial losses suffered by the holders of the formula funds in question. The case is still in progress. SOCIÉTÉ WALLONNE DU LOGEMENT On May 17, 2013, Société Wallonne du Logement (SWL) filed a complaint against Natixis before the Charleroi Commercial Court (Belgium), contesting the legality of a swap agreement entered into between SWL and Natixis in March 2006 and requesting that it be annulled. All of SWL’s claims were dismissed in a ruling by the Charleroi Commercial Court on November 28, 2014. On September 12, 2016, the Mons Court of Appeal annulled the contested swap agreement and ordered Natixis to repay to SWL the amounts paid by SWL as part of the swap agreement, less any amounts paid by Natixis to SWL under the same agreement and taking into account any amounts that would have been paid had the previous swap agreement not been terminated. The Court of Cassation of Belgium overturned this ruling on June 22, 2018. SWL filed an appeal in February 2019. SFF/CONTANGO TRADING SA In December 2015 the South African Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF) entered into agreements to sell certain oil reserves to several international oil traders. Contango Trading SA (a subsidiary of Natixis) provided funding for the deal. In March 2018, SFF launched a proceeding before the South African Supreme Court (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) primarily against Natixis and Contango Trading SA to have the agreements invalidated, declared null and void, and to obtain fair and equitable compensation. LUCCHINI SPA In March 2018 Natixis SA was summoned, jointly and severally with other banks, by Lucchini Spa (under extraordinary administration) to appear before the Court of Milan, with Lucchini Spa’s receiver alleging improprieties in the implementation of the loan restructuring agreement granted to Lucchini Spa. The case is still in progress.

6

FORMULA FUNDS

Following an inspection by the AMF (French financial markets authority) in February 2015 on Natixis Asset Management’s (now Natixis IM International) compliance with its professional obligations, particularly the management of its formula funds, the AMF’s Enforcement Committee delivered its decision on July 25, 2017, issuing a warning and a fine of € 35 million. The Enforcement

Dependency 6.10.3

BPCE is not dependent upon any specific patents, licenses, industrial procurement contracts, or commercial or financial agreements.

681

Registration document 2018