NATIXIS // 2021 Universal Registration Document

3 RISK FACTORS, RISK MANAGEMENT AND PILLAR III Risk management

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 dismissed as time-barredand, in 2018, Natixis settled the outstanding claims 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 US$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, on the one hand, and EDA, on the other, brought joint claims before the Commercial Court of Paris against Natixis and two other banking institutions for unlawful agreement, alleging that such actions led to the refusal to grant a guarantee to EDA and to the termination of various loans. Under this lawsuit, Selcodis is claiming compensationfor the losses purportedly suffered as a result of the court-orderedliquidationof 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 defendantsbe 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 delivered on June 24, 2020. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim that the proceedings were time-barred. It was decided not to appeal to the Court of Cassation. The resumptionof proceedings took place in March 2021 to resume the action on the merits. The case is ongoing. 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

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, reducing the fine to €20 million. It let the warning stand. In addition, UFC-QUE CHOISIR, in its capacity as a consumer 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 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. An agreement was signed on December 27, 2021 ending the case. 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 financing 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 judgmentwas deliveredon November 20,2020 declaring the nullity of the transactions and granting Contango Trading S.A. restitution 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.

and its former directors amount to €285 million. Natixis considers these accusations unfounded.

Following an objection as to jurisdiction, the Tribunal of Siena referred the case to the Tribunal of Florence on February 232,016. On December 20, 2021 an agreement was signed (notably providing for the payment by Natixis of €922,221.30)and the plaintiff agreed to waive its legal action. The file is closed.

160

NATIXIS UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT 2021