Prospectus - Notowania

In another area, the banks are requested to compensate damages for the amounts collected
(equivalent to €123.4 million as well as €1.1 million in fees and commissions) for the alleged
invalidity and illegality of the case or for illegal reasons involving all parties to the complex
deal that the transaction in question allegedly turned into, according to the petitioner, the
payment of Fin.Part debts to UniCredit using the proceeds from the C Finance S.A. bond issue.
In addition, the transaction was allegedly a means for evading Italian laws regarding limits and
procedures for bond issues.
UniCredit Group’s legal counsel is assessing the procedural aspects and the relationships
between the accompanying petitions of the two bankruptcies, also in regard to the appeal
pursuant to Article 101 of Regional Decree no. 267 of March 16, 1942, filed by the C Finance
S.A. bankruptcy against the bankruptcy of Fin.Part.
In January 2009, the judge rejected the writ of attachment for the defendant not belonging to
UniCredit Group.
On June 9, 2009 the deed of appearance and reply was submitted for UniCredit. At the hearing
on June 30, 2009, the judge allowed the personal appearance of the parties to begin settlement
proceedings, setting the hearing date for October 5, 2009.
The settlement proceedings were unproductive due to the distance of the parties' positions. The
judge postponed the hearing to January 12, 2010 for a new settlement attempt. The proceeding
is still pending as at the Date of the Prospectus.
On October 2, 2009, the receivership of Fin.Part subpoenaed in the Court of Milan UniCredit
Corporate Banking (as the party of the former Credito Italiano) in order that (i) the invalidity of
the “payment” of €46 million made in September 2001 by Fin.Part to the former Credito
Italiano be recognised and consequently, (ii) the defendant be sentenced to return said amount
in that it relates to an exposure granted by the bank as part of the complex financial transaction
under dispute in the prior proceedings.
According to the opinion of UniCredit, also based on the information supplied by their legal
counsel, the claims appear groundless and/or lacking from an evidence viewpoint,
consequently, also bearing in mind that the proceedings are in their initial stages, no provisions
have presently been made.
Seanox Oil P.T.
In 2004, Seanox Oil P.T., with registered office in Jakarta, made a decision to liquidate
(through Branch 26 in Milan of the former Banca di Roma) 2 certificates of deposit that were
apparently issued by UBS for a total amount of USD 500 million (USD 300 million and USD
200 million).
The aforementioned company instituted proceedings against the former Banca di Roma S.p.A.,
claiming it had suffered unjust loss deriving from the alleged illicit delivery to UBS Bank of
Zurich of one of the certificates, that of the certificate having a face value of USD 200 million,
which having proved to be false, was withdrawn by UBS Zurich.
- 348 -