Inhoudsopgave Voorwoord Bestuursverslag Corporate governance Consolidated Financial Statements Company Financial Statements Pillar 3 be made. I nvestors that choose to opt out of the settlement may still claim damages from Ageas and the defendants (including Rabobank) on an individual basis. (2) If the Court of Appeal does not declare the settlement binding for all eligible Fortis shareholders or if Ageas exercises its right to annul the settlement in case the opt-out ratio exceeds a certain limit, the proceedings against the VEB described above, in principle will resume as before the suspension. On 9 February 2017, mass claim litigant ConsumentenClaim announced that it has filed an objection to having the settlement declared binding with the Court of Appeal. Rabobank Group considers the Fortis case to be a contingent liability. No provision has been made. Libor/Euribor Rabobank has received a number of requests in recent years from regulators in various countries to issue documents and other information in relation to various issues, including issues related to its interest rate benchmark submissions. Rabobank is cooperating, and will continue to cooperate, with the regulators and authorities involved in these global investigations. On 29 October 2013, Rabobank entered into settlement agreements with various authorities in relation to their investigations into the historical Libor and Euribor submission processes of Rabobank. Additional information is available on the bank's corporate website. All amounts payable under these settlement agreements were fully paid and accounted for by Rabobank in 2013. Additionally, some of these settlement agreements required Rabobank to: (i) improve measures or to continue their implementation; and (ii) to cooperate on a continuous basis with ongoing investigations into the conduct of Rabobank and of its current and former employees in respect of the inappropriate conduct relating to interest rate benchmark submissions. Rabobank continues to comply with all its obligations under these settlement agreements. Rabobank, along with a large number of other panel banks and inter-dealer brokers, has been named as a defendant in a number of putative class action suits and individual civil court cases brought before the Federal Courts in the United States.These proceedings relate to the US Dollar (USD) Libor, British Pound Sterling (GBP) Libor, Japanese Yen (JPY) Libor, Tibor (note: Rabobank was never a member of theTIBOR panel) and Euribor. In 2014, an Argentinian consumer protection organisation brought an alleged class action suit against Rabobank in Argentina in relation to USD Libor. Rabobank has also been summoned to appear before various Dutch courts in civil proceedings relating to Euribor. Furthermore, various individuals and entities (including two Dutch collective claim foundations of which one was already mentioned above in the paragraph 'Interest Rate Derivatives in the Dutch SME Segment') have made a number of allegations relating to Euribor and/or other benchmarks in letters to and legal proceedings against Rabobank and/or an Irish subsidiary. Since the alleged class action suits and civil proceedings listed above, which have been brought before the courts in the US or elsewhere, are intrinsically subject to uncertainties, it is difficult to predict their outcomes. Rabobank takes the stance that it has substantive and convincing legal and factual defences against these claims. Rabobank has the intention to continue to defend itself against these claims. Rabobank Group considers the Libor Euribor case to be a contingent liability. No provision has been made. BSA/AML In 2015, Rabobank concluded a written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the New York State Department of Financial Services. Under this agreement, Rabobank is required to, among other things, improve the BSA/AML (Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering) framework for its NY branch and oversight for the US region. In December 2013, via Consent Order, the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) commenced a civil enforcement action against Rabobank, National Association (RNA) in connection with issues related to RNA's BSA/AML compliance programme. RNA is almost entirely owned by Rabobank and engages in retail banking in California. The Consent Order and related actions are still pending. In 2014, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) advised Rabobank that it was investigating RNA for possible violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations and statutes. RNA has provided documentation and other information in response to various DOJ requests; the DOJ has also conducted interviews of both current and former employees.The investigation is on-going. Recently the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (LinCEN) of the Department of theTreasury served a notice of Investigation on RNA. Rabobank understands that FinCEN is investigating essentially the same issues that are the subject of the OCC matter noted above. Both Rabobank and RNA are cooperating with all of these investigations and believe that these investigations will come to a conclusion in 2017. Also recently, a criminal complaint was filed with the Dutch Public Prosecutor (DPP) against Rabobank, two group entities and the persons factually in charge of these entities asking for a criminal investigation in relation to the matters related to the DOJ investigation. Rabobank understands that the DPP has received the complaint and awaits the DPP's response to it. Rabobank Group considers the BSA/ALM case to be a contingent liability. No provision has been made. 210 Rabobank Jaarverslag 2016

Rabobank Bronnenarchief

Jaarverslagen Rabobank | 2016 | | pagina 211