Contents Foreword Management report 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 the TIBOR 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 (FinCEN) of
the Department of the Treasury 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.
206 Rabobank Annual Report 2016