19.01.2013 Views

GENERAL MEETING DRAFT - Bankier.pl

GENERAL MEETING DRAFT - Bankier.pl

GENERAL MEETING DRAFT - Bankier.pl

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Valauret S.A.<br />

461<br />

>> Consolidated Financial Statements<br />

Part E – Information on risks and related risk management policies<br />

In 2001, the <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs (Valauret S.A. and Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant), bought shares in the French<br />

company Rhodia S.A. They maintain that they suffered losses as a result of the drop in Rhodia share<br />

prices between 2002 and 2003, allegedly caused by earlier fraudulent actions by members of the<br />

company’s board of directors, which made the financial statements untruthful and misleading.<br />

In 2004, the <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs filed a petition claiming damages against the board of directors, the external<br />

auditors, and Aventis S.A. (the alleged majority shareholder of Rhodia S.A.). Later they extended their<br />

claim to other parties, arriving at a total of 14 defendants, the latest being Bank Austria (BA), against<br />

which a petition was filed at the end of 2007, as successor of Creditanstalt AG (CA). The <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs<br />

maintain that the latter was involved in the aforementioned alleged fraudulent activities, as it was the<br />

credit institution of one of the companies involved in said activities. Valauret S.A. is seeking damages of<br />

�129.8 million in addition to legal costs and Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant is seeking damages of �4.39<br />

million.<br />

In BA’s opinion, the involvement of CA in fraudulent activities is without grounds. In 2006, well before the<br />

action was extended to BA, the civil proceedings were suspended following the opening of criminal<br />

proceedings lodged by the French public ministries based on the criminal charge against persons<br />

unknown by the same <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs.<br />

In December 2008, the Commercial Court of Paris suspended the civil proceedings against BA.<br />

In relation to such circumstances no provisions were made.<br />

Treuhandanstalt<br />

BA (formerly Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG) has joined as a party in support of the defendant AKB<br />

Privatbank Zürich AG (formerly a subsidiary of BA and formerly Bank Austria (Schweiz) AG) in a suit<br />

relating to alleged claims of Bundesanstalt für vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben “BvS” (formerly<br />

Treuhandanstalt), the German public body for the new Länder reconstruction.<br />

Essentially it is asserted that the former subsidiary embezzled funds from companies in the former East<br />

Germany. BvS is requesting compensation for damages of approximately �128 million, <strong>pl</strong>us interest<br />

dating back to 1992.<br />

On June 25, 2008 the Zurich District Court rejected the request of BvS, with the exception of the amount<br />

of �320 thousand that, in the Court's opinion, represents fees and commissions ap<strong>pl</strong>ied in good faith, in<br />

accordance with a contract that was no longer valid, by the former subsidiary of BA. Following the appeal<br />

submitted by both parties, the suit will continue in front of the Zurich Court of Appeals.<br />

At the time being it is not possible to reliably estimate the final result of the action, nor determine the level<br />

of responsibility, if any responsibility exists. Presently, in com<strong>pl</strong>iance with international accounting<br />

standards, no provisions were made.<br />

Association of small shareholders of NAMA d.d. in bankruptcy; Slobodni sindiKat<br />

Zagreba�ka was called before the Zagreb Municipal Court by two parties: (i) the association of small<br />

shareholders of NAMA d.d. in bankruptcy; (ii) Slobodni Sindikat.<br />

The parties allege that Zagreba�ka violated the rights of NAMA d.d., as minority shareholder of<br />

Zagreba�ka since 1994. The parties assert, inter alia, that Zagreba�ka did not distribute to NAMA d.d.<br />

profits in the form of Zagreba�ka shares.<br />

As such, the <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs ask the Court to sentence Zagreba�ka to assign ownership of 44,858 Zagreba�ka<br />

shares to NAMA d.d. or, alternatively, to pay the equivalent amount in cash that the <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs estimate at<br />

Kuna 897,160,000.00 (approximately �123.7 million) assuming that each share has a value of Kuna<br />

20,000.<br />

Zagreba�ka maintains that the <strong>pl</strong>aintiffs do not have legal standing in that they have never been<br />

Zagreba�ka shareholders, nor the holders of the rights allegedly violated.<br />

Zagreba�ka maintains that the alleged violation of rights due to the former minority shareholder NAMA

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!