Risk managementManagement <strong>report</strong>Consolidatedfinancial statementsAdditional information <strong>Annual</strong> financial statementsshare-lease products should be taken into account whencalculating damages and legal interest to be reimbursed is tobe calculated from the termination date of a contract.Shortly after the judgements of the Amsterdam Court ofAppeal were passed, cassation appeal against two of thosejudgements was filed by clients of the <strong>com</strong>pany and is stillpending. The judgements of the Netherlands Supreme Courtin these cases are expected by the end of the second quarterof 2011.The out<strong>com</strong>e of the judgement of the Amsterdam Court ofAppeal forms the basis of the out-of-court settlement attemptsby the Company (hereafter called the “Court model”).Spousal consent casesUnlike the situation with regard to disputes with clients aboutduty of care issues, the situation with regard to “spousalconsent” cases is less clear. On 28 March 2008 the NetherlandsSupreme Court ruled by judgement that article 1:88 of theDutch Civil Code is applicable to share-lease contracts. Theapplicability of this article means that the written consent ofthe spouse (or registered partner) of the lessee was necessaryto enter into the lease contract, in the absence of which thespouse is permitted to annul the contract, meaning that allpayments made under the contract should be reimbursedand any existing debt towards the Company resulting fromthe contract is extinguished. It has been well established injurisprudence that the spouse or partner should annul thecontract within three years after be<strong>com</strong>ing aware of theexistence of the contract. However, controversial questionsremain concerning the nature of the evidence required todemonstrate the knowledge of the spouse.Number of court casesOn 31 December <strong>2010</strong>, the Company is still involved in about2,000 civil court cases (<strong>com</strong>pared to over 3,400 at the end of2009). However, the vast majority of these court cases havebeen suspended. The vast majority of clients in proceedings(and especially those clients with <strong>com</strong>plaints about breach ofthe duty of care) were offered out-of-court settlements onthe basis of the so-called “Court model” during <strong>2010</strong>. Thenumber of clients in proceedings will decrease sharply in 2011because of settlements expected after the judgements of theSupreme Court and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.Proceedings related to “spousal cases” are still ongoing dueto the interpretation issues.Litigations in generalA number of disputes have arisen between the Company andits clients with respect to share-leasing products. Particularlywith regard to the nature of these disputes, <strong>Dexia</strong> refers toits earlier <strong>report</strong>s and quarterly activity <strong>report</strong>s. Generallyspeaking, only the approximately 19,000 clients that have fileda so-called opt-out statement before 1 August 2007, and didnot enter into any settlement since then, are entitled to startor continue proceedings against the Company. However, morethan 1,800 cases have already been closed due to settlementswith the Company or the closure of proceedings.Klachteninstituut Financiële Dienstverlening(KiFiD)At the end of <strong>2010</strong>, three share-lease related cases werestill under consideration by the Klachteninstituut FinanciëleDienstverlening (KiFiD), the Complaints Institute for FinancialServices.Provisions as at 31 December <strong>2010</strong>Provisions are updated every quarter and may be influencedby fluctuations in the value of the underlying equity portfoliosof the share-leasing contracts, by client behaviour and byfuture judgements. At the end of <strong>2010</strong> the provisioningmodel was adapted to the most recent information aboutclient behaviour as well as the most recent information aboutthe effect of the “Court model”. The net financial impactthereof on <strong>Dexia</strong>’s <strong>2010</strong> financial statements was negligible.At the end of December <strong>2010</strong>, total provisions amounted toEUR 177.5 million.Lernout & Hauspie<strong>Dexia</strong> Bank Belgium (<strong>Dexia</strong> Bank) was involved in various waysin the bankruptcy of Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products SA(LHSP) and the consequences thereof. This was described indetail in the 2007, 2008 and 2009 annual <strong>report</strong>s.The following important developments have taken place sincethe 2009 annual <strong>report</strong>.Claim on Lernout & Hauspie Speech ProductsAt 31 December <strong>2010</strong>, <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank has a claim in USDchargeable to the bankruptcy of LHSP for a principal sum ofEUR 29.3 million (exchange rate USD/EUR 1.3399), for whichan impairment of EUR 25.1 million has been booked. Thisclaim originates in the share taken by the former ArtesiaBanking Corporation (ABC) in the syndicated loan of USD 430million to LHSP on 5 May 2000. ABC’s share amounted toUSD 50 million.<strong>Dexia</strong> Bank believes it will be able to recover the netaccounting value of this claim.The liquidation of LHSP’s assets is subject to separateproceedings in Belgium and in the United States.According to the LHSP Belgian bankruptcy receivers, <strong>Dexia</strong>Bank and the other unsecured creditors are unlikely to receiveany reimbursement from the Belgian liquidation of LHSP.In 2008, <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank waived its claim on the insolvency ofLHSP in the United States, in exchange for a waiver by theAmerican Litigation Trustee of LHSP of all its claims enteredagainst <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank.Prosecution of <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank in BelgiumOn 4 May 2007, <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank was summoned, together with20 other parties, to appear before the Court of Appeal inGhent. According to the writ of summons, <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank wasprosecuted by virtue of the former ABC being accused asan alleged accessory to the falsification of the financialstatements of LHSP and other related offences among whichforgery, securities fraud and market manipulation.90 <strong>Dexia</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>report</strong> <strong>2010</strong>
Risk managementOn 20 September <strong>2010</strong>, the Court of Appeal of Ghentpassed its judgement on the criminal case. It acquitted <strong>Dexia</strong>Bank and Mr G. Dauwe, former member of the ManagementBoard of ABC, of all criminal charges on the basis of a verydetailed analysis of the facts by the Court of Appeal.No party has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appealagainst this acquittal of <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank and Mr G. Dauwe, so thattheir acquittal is definitive.As a result of those acquittals, the Court of Appeal of Ghentis no longer <strong>com</strong>petent to pronounce on the claims madein civil actions by the shareholders, creditors and receivers ofLHSP against <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank and Mr G. Dauwe. Deminor andDolor, together representing the majority of the individualsbringing civil actions, consider that they can only appealwhen the Court of Appeal in Ghent has pronounced on thecivil case. <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank and its counsel are of the opinion thatthis position is extremely contestable.Whatever the case, an appeal by a civil party will notthrow back into question the acquittal of <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank andMr G. Dauwe.Considering the <strong>com</strong>prehensively substantiated judgement,the risk of <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank being ordered to pay damages andinterest to the receivers, creditors or shareholders of LHSP isparticularly low.Civil proceedings against <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank inBelgiumLHSP receivers’ claimIn July 2005, the Belgian receivers of LHSP filed a civil actionbefore the Commercial Court of Ypres against twenty-oneparties including <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank. They claim <strong>com</strong>pensation forthe net liabilities of LHSP in bankruptcy. According to thereceivers’ provisional assessment of the claim, it would amountto approximately EUR 439 million. This claim, to a largeextent duplicative of the claims introduced by the receiversin the criminal proceedings, has not developed since then.There is not likely to be any development until after the endof the criminal proceedings (still on hold before the SupremeCourt of Appeal with regard to parties other than <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank)and settlement of the civil aspect before the Court of Appeal.Considering the acquittal of <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank and the reasoning forthe order, the risk of that action being declared substantiatedis considered extremely low.Individual actionsDuring the criminal proceedings, certain civil claims werefiled before the Commercial Courts of Ypres and Brusselsagainst various parties, including <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank. The main claimwas filed by Deminor on behalf of 4,941 investors. Similarly,151 investors affiliated to Spaarverlies (now named Dolor)and the liquidators of the <strong>com</strong>pany Velstra also <strong>com</strong>mencedcivil actions. These claims, to a large extent duplicative of theclaims introduced in the criminal proceedings, have notdeveloped since then. There is not likely to be any developmentuntil after the end of the criminal proceedings (still onhold before the Supreme Court of Appeal with regard toparties other than <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank) and settlement of the civilaspect before the Court of Appeal.Considering the acquittal of <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank and the reasoning forthe order, the risk of that action being declared substantiatedis considered extremely low.L&H HoldingOn 27 April 2004, the bankruptcy receiver of L&H Holdingsummoned Messrs Lernout, Hauspie and Willaert, alongwith Banque Artesia Nederland (BAN) and <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank, toreturn the Parvest shares (the value of which was estimatedat USD 31.5 million as at 31 December <strong>2010</strong>) or, in default,to pay the principal amount of USD 25 million. The case,pending before the Commercial Court of Ypres, has notdeveloped since thenThis action is connected with a USD 25 million loan grantedto Mr Bastiaens by BAN in July 2000 for the purposes of theacquisition by Mr Bastiaens of LHSP shares owned by L&HHolding. The selling price of USD 25 million was credited notto the account of L&H Holding but to three separate accountsopened by Messrs Lernout, Hauspie and Willaert. Taking theview that this money was due to L&H Holding, the L&HHolding bankruptcy receiver is claiming its repayment.The order by the Court of Appeal in Ghent on 20 September<strong>2010</strong> attributed the said Parvest shares to the bankruptcyreceiver of L&H Holding.If the Parvest shares, on deposit in the Netherlands and seizedby various parties, are restored to the bankruptcy receiver ofL&H Holding, his action will have no object and in principleit will lapse.ProvisionsIn view of its acquittal in the criminal case on the basis ofthe facts of the case, the risk that <strong>Dexia</strong> Bank will be orderedto pay damages and interest in the current civil proceedingsis particularly low and no provision has been constituted inthat regard.Financial Security AssuranceFinancial Security Assurance Holdings Ltd (FSA Holdings) andits subsidiary, Financial Security Assurance Inc. (now namedAssured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and hereafter referredto as “AGM”), former subsidiaries of the <strong>Dexia</strong> Group, andmany other banks, insurance <strong>com</strong>panies and brokerage firmsare being investigated in the United States by the AntitrustDivision of the US Department of Justice, the US tax authoritiesand the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) onthe grounds that they violated certain laws and regulationsin connection with bidding on and entering into municipalderivatives transactions, including guaranteed investmentcontracts (GICs) (1) , with the issuers of municipal bonds.Several US states have initiated parallel, similar investigations.In addition to the governmental investigations describedabove, a large number of banks, insurance <strong>com</strong>panies andbrokerages, including in some cases FSA Holdings, <strong>Dexia</strong> and/or AGM, have been named as defendants in various civilactions relating to municipal GICs and municipal derivativestransactions. These civil lawsuits allege violations of antitrustand other laws and regulations. Substantially all these civil(1) The guaranteed investment contracts (GICs) that are the subject of theseinvestigations and lawsuits were issued by subsidiaries of FSA Holdingsin exchange for an investment of funds by US municipal entities. Thosesubsidiaries also issued GICs to issuers of securitized debt securities. The GICs,which had varying terms and repayment conditions, entitle their holdersto receive interest payments at a guaranteed rate (fixed or variable) alongwith a return of invested principal. Payments of principal and interest on theGICs were guaranteed by AGM, and remain so after the acquisition of that<strong>com</strong>pany by Assured Guaranty Ltd.Management <strong>report</strong>Consolidatedfinancial statementsAdditional information <strong>Annual</strong> financial statements<strong>Annual</strong> <strong>report</strong> <strong>2010</strong> <strong>Dexia</strong>91