NATIXIS -2020 Universal Registration Document

3 RISK FACTORS, RISK MANAGEMENT AND PILLAR III Risk management

MMR claim In 2007, Ixis Corporate & Investment Bank (the predecessor of Natixis) issued EMTNs (Euro MediumTermNotes) indexed to a fund that invested in the Bernard Madoff Investment Securities fund. Renstone Investments Ltd (the apparent predecessor of MMR Investment Ltd) is alleged to have subscribed, via a financial intermediary acting as the placement agent, for these bonds in the amount of $50 million. In April 2012, MMR Investment Ltd filed a joint claim against Natixis and the financial intermediarybefore the Commercial Court of Paris, claiming not to have received the bonds, despite having paid the subscription price to the financial intermediary. The claim mainly concerns the reimbursement of the subscription price of the bonds and, as an alternative, the annulment of the subscription on the grounds of defect in consent. On February 6, 2017, the Commercial Court of Paris dismissed all of MMR Investment Ltd’s claims. This ruling was upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal on October 22, 2018. An appeal was lodged by MMR Investment Ltd. The case is ongoing. Securitization in the United States Since 2012, five separate legal proceedings regarding residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) transactions executed between 2001 and mid-2007 have been initiated against Natixis Real Estate Holdings LLC before the New York Supreme Court. Two of these five proceedings relate to accusations of fraud. One was dismissed in 2015 as time-barred. Some of the claims relating to the second case were also dismissedas time-barredand, in 2018, Natixis settled the outstandingclaims before the court issued a final ruling on the merits of the case. Three of these five proceedings have been brought against Natixis, purportedly on behalf of certificate holders, alleging that Natixis failed to repurchase defective mortgages from certain securitization transactions. Two of them were dismissed as time-barred, and the plaintiffs’ appeals were also dismissed. As for the only action currently in progress, which involves a claim of approximately USD 820 million, Natixis believes that the claims against it are unfounded for a number of reasons. In particular because the actions against it are time-barred (and because the plaintiffs do not have standing) to act. EDA – Selcodis Through two complaints filed on November 20, 2013, Selcodis and EDA also brought claims before the Commercial Court of Paris against Natixis and two other banking institutions for unlawful agreements, alleging that such actions led to the refusal to grant a guarantee to EDA and to the termination of various loans. Selcodis is asking for compensation for the losses purportedly suffered as a result of the court-ordered liquidation of its subsidiary EDA, 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 considers all of these claims to be unfounded. On December 6, 2018, after consolidating these claims, the Commercial Court of Paris found them to have expired and deemed them closed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against this ruling in January 2019. The judgment was handed down on June 24, 2020. The Court of Appeal ruled out the expiry of the current proceedings.Thisjudgment is subject to appeal. If no party is served with the appeal judgment, the time limit for appeal does not run and an appeal is therefore still possible.

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 executive 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 its 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 ongoing. Formula funds Following an inspection by the AMF in February 2015with regard to Natixis Asset Management’s (now Natixis IM International) compliance with its professional obligations, particularly the management of its formula funds, the AMF’s Enforcement Committeedelivered its decision on July 25, 2017, issuing a warning and a fine of €35 million. The Enforcement Committee found a number of failings concerning the redemption fees charged to funds and structuring margins. Natixis IM International filed an appeal against this ruling with the French Council of State. In its decision of November 6, 2019, the French Council of State overturned the Enforcement Committee’s decision, reducingthe fine to €20 million. It let the warning stand. In addition, UFC-QUE CHOISIR, in its capacity as a consumers’ rights non-profit, brought claims before the Paris District Court 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 ongoing. 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. In February 2019, SWL lodged an appeal procedure with a Court of Appeal. On April 22, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Liège annulled the contested swap agreement and ordered Natixis to repay to SWL an amount corresponding to the difference between the execution cost of the contested swap agreement and the many amounts that would have been paid had the previous swap agreement not been terminated, in addition to interest at the legal rate. Natixis appealed to the French Supreme Court against this decision.

166

NATIXIS UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT 2020

Made with FlippingBook Publishing Software