Inhoudsopgave Voorwoord Bestuursverslag Corporate governance Consolidated Financial Statements Company Financial Statements Pillar 3 Interest rate derivatives Rabobank concludes interest rate derivatives, such as interest rate swaps, with Dutch business customers who wish to reduce the interest rate risk associated with variable (e.g., Euribor- indexed) loans. Such an interest rate swap protects customers from rising variable interest rates and helps businesses to keep their interest payments at an acceptable level. In March 2016, the Dutch Minister of Finance appointed an independent committee, which on 5 July 2016, published a recovery framework (the Recovery Framework) on the reassessment of Dutch SME interest rate derivatives. Rabobank announced its decision to take part in the Recovery Framework on 7 July 2016. The final version of the Recovery Framework was published by the independent committee on 19 December 2016. Implementation of the Recovery Framework is expected to be finalised in 2017. Rabobank is involved in civil proceedings in the Netherlands relating to interest rate derivatives concluded with Dutch business customers. The majority of these concern individual cases. In addition, there is a collective action regarding interest rate derivatives pending before the Court of Appeal. These actions concern allegations relating to alleged misconduct in connection with Rabobank's Euribor submissions (as described below) and or allegations of misinforming clients with respect to interest rate derivatives. Rabobank will defend itself against all these claims. Furthermore, there are pending complaints and proceedings against Rabobank regarding interest rate derivatives brought before Kifid (Dutch Financial Services Complaints Authority, which, in January 2015, opened a conflict resolution procedure for SME businesses with interest rate derivatives). With respect to the (re-)assessment of the interest rate derivatives of its Dutch SME business customers, Rabobank has recognised a provision of 699.The main uncertainties in the calculations of the provision stem from assumptions regarding the scoping of clients. Furthermore, the calculations regarding technical recovery are based on a portfolio approach instead of individual contract calculations. Fortis In 2011the Dutch Investors Association (VEB) issued a summons against the company formerly known as Fortis N.V. (currently trading as Ageas N.V.), the underwriters involved - including Rabobank - and the former directors of Fortis N.V. The VEB states in this summons that investors were misled by the prospectus published by Ageas N.V. in connection with its rights issue in September 2007. The VEB states that the impact and risks of the subprime crisis for Fortis and its liquidity position were misrepresented in the prospectus and has requested a declaratory judgement stating that the defendants acted illegitimately and must therefore be held liable for the loss allegedly suffered by investors in Fortis. Rabobank maintains the view that the aforementioned loss of EUR 18 billion has not been properly substantiated. The proceedings concern a settlement of collective loss, which means that the court will only rule on the question of whether the defendants (including Rabobank) are liable. Rabobank has been defending itself against the claim and a final hearing was scheduled to start on 14 March 2016. That day, however, Ageas announced a settlement of EUR 1.2 billion with claimant organisations VEB, Deminor, Stichting FortisEffect and Stichting Investor Claims Against Fortis (SICAF) with respect to all disputes and claims relating to various events in 2007 and 2008 in respect of the former Fortis group (including the VEB claim described above). On 23 May 2016, the parties to the settlement requested the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to declare the settlement binding for all eligible Fortis shareholders (in accordance with the Dutch Law on the Collective Resolvement of Mass Damages ('Wet Collectieve Afwikkeling Massaschade').The legal proceedings relating to the above VEB claim have been suspended until this specific procedure is finalised. There are two basic potential scenarios: (1) In case the Court of Appeal declares the settlement binding, investors may choose to opt out of the settlement during an opt-out period of three to six months. After this period (and provided that the settlement is not annulled because the opt-out ratio exceeds a certain limit), distributions of payments will start.The release of Rabobank (and other underwriters) is subject to satisfaction of the compensation obligations towards the eligible Fortis shareholders. It is expected that it will take at least 18 months from the Court of Appeal judgement on the binding nature of the settlement before the first payments will be made. Investors 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. 278 Rabobank Jaarverslag 2016

Rabobank Bronnenarchief

Jaarverslagen Rabobank | 2016 | | pagina 279