Prospectus - Notowania

standards, no provisions were made for specific risks associated with Madoff disputes as at the
Date of the Prospectus.
Medienfonds
Various investors in VIP Medienfonds 4 Gmbh & Co. KG (“Medienfonds”) brought legal
proceedings against the subsidiary HVB. The investors in the Medienfonds fund initially
enjoyed certain tax benefits which were later prohibited by the tax authorities. The UniCredit
Group did not sell shares in the Medienfonds fund, but granted loans for the investment in said
fund, to all investors (for a part of the amount invested), by assuming specific repayment
obligations in respect of said fund of which some film distributors are holders. The actors argue
that HVB was aware that the structure of the fund increased the tax risk associated with the
investment, particularly in relation to the possible loss of tax benefits and that it would be
responsible, together other parties, for presumed errors in the prospectus used to market the
fund. The courts of first instance passed various sentences, also unfavourable, on UniCredit,
but none of these decisions have yet become final. The District High Court of Munich is
dealing with the issue relating to prospectus liability through a specific procedure pursuant to
the Capital Markets Test Case Act (Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz) including that of
HVB. HVB and another German bank involved in said proceedings have proposed a
settlement. HVB has moved to make provisions which are, at present, deemed to be congruous.
Proceedings relating to the appeal against the shareholders’ resolutions of Bank Pekao
Some minority shareholders (individuals) of Bank Pekao have appealed, in the last three years,
against some of the resolutions adopted by the shareholders’ meeting of Bank Pekao. In this
period of time, these shareholders have submitted a series of petitons for the withdrawal and
cancellation of various shareholders’ meeting resolutions. Some of these proceedings have
already been concluded and the claims of these minority shareholders rejected whilst others are
still pending. In particular, the minority shareholders have appealed the shareholders’ meeting
resolutions relating to the approval of the financial statements for the 2006, 2007 and 2008
financial years, as well as the resolution of approval of the separation of part of the assets of
BPH to Bank Pekao. Considering the conduct of these minority shareholders, further
proceedings connected to the appeal of the resolutions cannot be excluded.
CODACONS Class action
With a petition served on January 5, 2010, CODACONS (Co-oordination of the associations
for the defence of the environment and the protection of consumer rights), in the interest of one
of its applicants, submitted a class action to the Court of Rome against UniCredit Banca di
Roma pursuant to article 140-bis of the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree no. 206 dated
September 6, 2005). This action, which was brought for an amount of €1,250 (plus
unquantified non-material damages), is based on the allegations of AGCM, according to which
Italian banks would have paid for the abolition of maximum overdraft commission introducing
new and more costly commissions for users. In compliance with the procedure regulated by
Legislative Decree no. 206 dated September 6, 2005, the applicant asked the Court of Rome to
allow the action specifying the criteria based on which the parties which intend to adhere are
included in the class action and setting fixed terms of not more than 120 days within which the
adhesion contracts must be deposited in the court registry. If the Court considers the collective
- 359 -