INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS - Banca di Legnano

Level: 2 – From: 2 – Wednesday, July 21, 2010 – 13:20 – eprint6 – 4247 Section 10
Acquisition and positive statements regarding the Acquisition. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount
in disgorgement, penalties, restitution, and damages and other equitable relief.
Merrill Lynch Subprime-related Matters
Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund v. Conway, et al.
On October 3, 2008, a putative class action was filed against ML&Co., Merrill Lynch Capital Trust
I, Merrill Lynch Capital Trust II, Merrill Lynch Capital Trust III, MLPF&S (collectively the Merrill Lynch
entities), and certain present and former ML&Co. officers and directors, and underwriters, including BAS,
in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The complaint seeks relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by the Merrill Lynch entities pursuant to a shelf
registration statement dated March 31, 2006. The complaint alleged that prospectuses misstated the
financial condition of the Merrill Lynch entities and failed to disclose their exposure to losses from
investments tied to subprime and other mortgages, as well as their liability arising from its participation in
the ARS market. On October 22, 2008, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and on November 5, 2008 it was accepted as a related case to In re Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation. On April 21, 2009, the parties reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Louisiana Sheriff’s matter in an amount that is not material to the Issuer’s
Consolidated Financial Statements and dismiss all claims with prejudice. On November 30, 2009, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the settlement.
Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al.; Iron Workers Local
No. 25 Pension Fund v. Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, et al.; Public
Employees’ Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. et al.; Wyoming State Treasurer
v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
Beginning in December 2008, ML&Co. affiliated entities, including Merrill Lynch Mortgage
Investors, Inc., and officers and directors of Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., and others were
named in four putative class actions arising out of the underwriting and sale of more than US$55 billion of
MBS. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant registration statements and
accompanying prospectuses or prospectus supplements misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding
the underwriting standards used to originate the mortgages in the mortgage pools underlying the MBS, the
process by which the mortgage pools were acquired, and the appraisals of the homes secured by the
mortgages. Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of the MBS allegedly caused by the
performance of the underlying mortgages or to rescind their purchases of the MBS. These cases were
consolidated under the caption Public Employees’ Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
and, on May 20, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. On June 17, 2009, all defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle Litigation
General Information
On December 23, 2009, FHLB Seattle filed a complaint, entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of
Seattle v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of Washington for King
County against MLPF&S, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital,
Inc. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of Washington in connection with the offering
of various MBS and asserts, among other things, misstatements and omissions concerning the credit
quality of the mortgage loans underlying the MBS and the loan origination practices associated with those
loans. The complaint seeks rescission, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
214