NATIXIS -2020 Universal Registration Document

RISK FACTORS, RISK MANAGEMENT AND PILLAR III Risk management

SFF/Contango Trading S.A. 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 S.A. (a Natixis subsidiary) provided funding for the deal. In March 2018, SFF filed a lawsuit before the South African Supreme Court (Western Cape division, Cape Town), primarily against Natixis and Contango Trading S.A., with a view to having the agreements invalidated, declared null and void, and to obtain fair and equitable compensation. A judgment was handed down on November 20, 2020 declaring the transactions null and void and awarding Contango Trading S.A. refunds and reparations in the amount of US$208,702,648. On December 22,2020, the judge authorizedSFF and Vitol to appeal this judgment and at the same time SFF paid Contango Trading S.A. the sum of US$123,865,600 in execution of the uncontested part of the judgment. This judgment was partially appealed. Lucchini Spa In March 2018,Natixis S.A. was summoned, jointly and severallywith other banks, by Lucchini Spa (under extraordinary administration) to appear before the Court of Milan, with Lucchini Spa’s receiver alleging improprieties in the implementationof the loan restructuring agreement granted to Lucchini Spa. The case is ongoing. In its decision on July 21, 2020, the Court of Milan dismissed all Lucchini Spa’s claims and sentenced it to pay cost of proceedings for a total amount of €1.2 million, of which €174 thousand for each bank of group of banks. This decision is subject to appeal. Lucchini Spa appealed against the judgment. The case iosngoing. Competition Authority/Natixis Intertitres and Natixis On October 9, 2015, a company operating in the meal voucher industry lodged a complaint with the Competition Authority to contest industry practices with respect to the issuance and acceptance of meal vouchers. The complaint targeted several French companies operating in the meal voucher industry, including Natixis Intertitres. In its decision of December 17,2019, the CompetitionAuthority ruled that Natixis had participated in two practices designed to keep new entrants out of the restaurant voucher market: the exchange of confidential information and the adoption of a series of agreements intended to lock up the market. Natixis Intertitres received a fine of €4,360,000, along with two other fines totaling €78,962,000, jointly and severally with Natixis. This decision was the subject of a press release from the Competition Authority dated December 18, 2019. Natixis and Natixis Intertitres are appealing this decision.

Bucephalus Capital Limited/Darius Capital Partners

On June 7, 2019, the company BucephalusCapital Limited (a UK law firm), together with other firms, brought claims against Darius Capital Partners (a French law firm, now operating under the name Darius Capital Conseil, and 70%-held subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers) before the Paris Commercial Court, to contest the breach of various contractual obligations, particularly with respect to a framework agreement dated September 5, 2013 setting out their contractual relations and various subsequent agreements. Bucephalus Capital Limited claims a total of €178,487,500. Darius Capital Partners consider these claims to be unfounded. The case is ongoing. European Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation At the end of December 2019,Natixis was added as a defendant in a class action brought to the US District Court, SD New York, on allegations of violations in the market for European Government Bonds (EGBs) between January 1, 2007 and December 31,2012. The class actionwas initially brought against several identifiedbanks and banks of unknown identity (“John Doe”) in March 2019. Natixis, like the other defendants in this case, requested the dismissal of the action on a preliminary basis and before any decision on the merits on multiple grounds, a request which was denied at this stage. Natixis intends to continue to defend itself vigorously, both on the merits and procedurally, against these allegations that it considers unfounded. Disputes of receivables offset On July 17, 2020, a case was brought against Natixis and another defendant before the English courts in order to request a declaratory judgment recognizing the merits of a set-off made on a transaction financed by Natixis. The plaintiff is also contesting the transfer to Natixis of the payment rights under the transaction. Natixis counterclaimed for payment in the amount of US$55,396,323.46. The case is ongoing. In March 2020, cases were brought before the courts of the State of New York following a set-off made by Natixis upon the payment of a standby letter of credit, the set-off taking into account a debt of the recipient of a standby letter of credit. Natixis asks the Court to uphold the merits of the set-off and to dismiss the demand for paymentmade against the bank in the amount of US$46,076,165.15. The hearing was held on November 29, 2020 and a decision is expected in the coming months. Situation of dependency 3.2.9.2 Natixis is not dependent on anypatent or license, or on any industrial, commercial or financial supply contract.

3

167

www.natixis.com

NATIXIS UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT 2020