Prospectus - Notowania

- 75 -
RISK FACTORS
related supplements used for the offer of the securities. Those bringing the class
action maintain that the investors were allegedly mislead, for example, with
regard to the lack of diversification in the investments, with regard to the same
fact that the funds were invested in BMIS and with regard to the due diligence
activities carried out by the defendants. Furthermore, those bring the action
allege that the defendants did not take adequate account of those “danger signs”
(so-called red flags) which they were aware of, which should have acquainted
them of the fraud committed by Bernard L. Madoff. The three class actions have
been brought to obtain compensation for the damages suffered with the related
interest, the reimbursement of the costs, the legal fees and the issue of legal
injunctions on an equitable or precautionary basis (equitable/injunctive relief).
One of the class actions aims, in particular, to obtain a legal sentence which
orders the defendants to compensate a sum equating to the amount of the initial
investments of the plaintiffs together with the related interest and income which
the plaintiffs would have obtained if their money had been invested shrewdly.
By means of the same action brought, the order to compensate punitive damages
is specifically requested along with the Court prohibiting the defendants from
availing themselves of the assets of the funds so as to defend themselves or
indemnify themselves.
Legal proceedings associated with the Bernard L. Madoff swindle were also
furthered in Austria, where, among others, BA and BANKPRIVAT AG (a
company previously a subsidiary of BA which was merged with BA on October
28, 2009) were summoned before the court. The plaintiffs allegedly invested in
funds which, in turn, allegedly directly or indirectly invested in BMIS. BA is
also subject to legal proceedings in Austria further to a complaint presented by
the Austria Financial Markets Supervisory Authority to the Austrian Public
Prosecutor’s Office and the charges made to the same Office by private
individuals who allegedly invested in funds which, in turn, allegedly directly or
indirectly invested in BMIS. The parties who presented these charges maintain,
among other aspects, that BA allegedly violated the provisions of the Austrian
consolidated law on investments which disciplines BA’s role as “prospectus
supervisor” for the Primeo funds.
Various subsidiaries of the Issuer have received orders and requests to present
and produce information and documents from the SEC, the U.S. Department of
Justice and the SIPA Trustee in the USA, the Austrian financial markets
supervisory authority, the Irish financial services supervisory authority and the
BaFin in Germany in relation to the respective investigations carried out into the
fraud perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff. The companies who received these
orders or requests are collaborating with the authorities.
Besides the proceedings relating to the Madoff case brought against the Issuer,
its subsidiaries and a number of the respective employees or former employees,
further action has been threatened and could be taken in the future in said
countries or others both by private investors and local authorities. Such pending