Annual Report of Euram Bank Vienna 2012/2013

| 14
authentic signature of the person authorized
by the Indian company and not a
forgery. Two court hearings took place in
this case in the fiscal year 2012/2013. The
court has however not yet treated the main
allegation of the Indian company, which is
to “clarify the pledge agreement's lack of
authenticity". Based on the above mentioned
expert opinion, Euram Bank assumes
that the court will decide in favor of Euram
Bank.
On January 2, 2013, Euram Bank learned
that a US citizen brought an “action for
damages" against Euram Bank before the
United States District Court for the District
of North Carolina in August 2011. The
plaintiff argues that in December 2002 he
participated in a transaction planned, promoted
and marketed by Euram Bank. Having
investigated the plaintiff's income tax
return, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
denied the plaintiff the right to offset his
losses. Euram Bank refuted and entirely
rejected all claims and accusations of the
plaintiff and made available to the District
Court of North Carolina through US counsel
all relevant documents, which prove
that Euram Bank has not planned, promoted
or marketed those transactions at any
point in time. Euram Bank considers it unlikely
having to accept any financial responsibility
for this case. Consequently,
Euram Bank has not made accruals for litigation
risks in its June 30, 2013 financial
statements.
3. Risk Reporting
Euram Bank applies the standard method
set out in Section 22a of the Banking Act
to calculate its credit risk. Euram Bank
grants loans in the context of existing customer
relationships and subject to full collateralization,
either through cash deposits
or through securities held with Euram
Bank, taking into account appropriate
conservative lending limits. Euram Bank
does not invest in derivative financial instruments.