INDEX OF DEFINED TERMS - Banca di Legnano

Level: 2 – From: 2 – Wednesday, July 21, 2010 – 13:20 – eprint6 – 4247 Section 10
in these actions continue to allege a substantially similar conspiracy and now assert violations of the
Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. Six individual actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Courts for the Eastern and Central Districts of California. All of these cases allege a substantially similar
conspiracy and violations of the Sherman and Cartwright Acts, and seek unspecified damages, and in some
cases, treble damages. All six cases are in the process of being transferred for consolidation in the In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation.
On September 3, 2009, BANA was sued by the West Virginia Attorney General on behalf of the
State of West Virginia for the same conspiracy alleged in the In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust
Litigation. The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Mason County, West Virginia. BANA
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Huntington
Division). The State’s motion to remand is fully briefed. Upon removal, BANA noticed the State’s case as
a tag-along action subject to transfer by the MDL Panel. The MDL Panel has issued a Conditional Transfer
Order transferring the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The State
objected and filed a motion to vacate. That motion was denied on February 2, 2010.
Beginning in April 2008, the Issuer and BANA received subpoenas, interrogatories and/or civil
investigative demands from a number of state attorneys general requesting documents and information
regarding municipal derivatives transactions from 1992 through the present. The Issuer and BANA are
cooperating with the state attorneys general.
Ocala Litigation
On November 25, 2009, BANA was named as a defendant in two related lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. In BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of
America, N.A. and Deutsche Bank, AG v. Bank of America, N.A., plaintiffs assert breach of contract,
negligence and indemnification claims in connection with BANA’s roles as, among other things, collateral
agent, custodian and indenture trustee of Ocala Funding, LLC (“Ocala”). Ocala was a mortgage
warehousing facility that provided funding to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (“TBW”) by
issuing commercial paper and term securities backed by mortgage loans originated by TBW. Plaintiffs
claim that they purchased in excess of US$1.6 billion in securities issued by Ocala and that BANA
allegedly failed, among other things, to protect the collateral backing plaintiffs’ securities. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, among other relief. On February 4, 2010, BANA moved to dismiss
the complaints. On March 17, 2010, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of an opposition to
the motion to dismiss filed by BANA that restated the previously asserted claims and added claims for
breach of fiduciary duty. On April 30, 2010, BANA filed a motion to dismiss each of these amended
complaints.
Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. Matters
General Information
On December 24, 2003, Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. (“Parmalat”) was admitted into insolvency
proceedings in Italy, known as “extraordinary administration.” The Issuer, through certain of its
subsidiaries, including BANA, provided financial services and extended credit to Parmalat and its related
entities. On June 21, 2004, Extraordinary Commissioner Dr. Enrico Bondi filed with the Italian Ministry of
Production Activities a plan of reorganization for the restructuring of the companies of the Parmalat group
that are included in the Italian extraordinary administration proceeding. In July 2004, the Italian Ministry
of Production Activities approved the Extraordinary Commissioner’s restructuring plan, as amended, for
the Parmalat group companies that are included in the Italian extraordinary administration proceeding.
This plan was approved by the voting creditors and the Court of Parma, Italy in October of 2005.
Litigation and investigations relating to Parmalat are pending in both Italy and the United States.
216