55. Disputes

The PZU Group entities participate in a number of litigations and administrative proceedings. Typical litigations involving the PZU Group companies include disputes pertaining to concluded insurance agreements, disputes concerning labor relationships and disputes relating to contractual obligations. For typical administrative proceedings involving the PZU Group companies include proceedings conducted by KNF, proceedings related to untimely payout of benefits, proceedings conducted by the Financial Ombudsman, proceedings related to delays or no reply to complaints, and proceedings related to the possession of real properties.

Such proceedings and litigation are of a typical and repetitive nature and usually no particular case is of material importance to the PZU Group.

The majority of disputes involving the PZU Group companies concerned four companies: PZU, PZU Życie, Pekao and Alior Bank. Additionally, PZU and PZU Życie are parties to proceedings conducted before the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.

Estimates of the provision amounts for individual cases take into account all information available on the date of signing the consolidated financial statements, however their value may change in the future. The insurance company takes disputed claims into account in the process of establishing technical provisions for known losses, considering the probability of an unfavorable outcome of the dispute and estimating the probable awarded amount.

As at 31 December 2020, the total value of dispute in all 282,352 cases (as at 31 December 2019: 294,687) cases pending before courts, arbitration bodies or public administration authorities in which PZU Group entities take part, was PLN 8,825 million (as at 31 December 2019: PLN 8,363 million). This amount included PLN 4,408 million (as at 31 December 2019: PLN 4,293 million) of liabilities and PLN 4,417 million (as at 31 December 2019: PLN 4,070 million) of receivables of PZU Group companies.

In 2020 and by the date of signing the consolidated financial statements, the PZU Group companies were not involved in any proceedings conducted before a court, an arbitration body or a public administration authority which concerned any liabilities or receivables of PZU or any of its direct or indirect subsidiaries the unit value of which would be material, save for the issues described in the sections below.

55.1 Resolutions of the Ordinary Shareholder Meeting of PZU to distribute the profit earned in the financial year 2006

On 30 July 2007, an action was brought by Manchester Securities Corporation (“MSC”) with its registered office in New York against PZU to repeal Resolution No. 8/2007 adopted by the Company’s Ordinary Shareholder Meeting on 30 June 2007 to distribute PZU’s profit for the financial year 2006 as contradicting good practices and aimed at harming the plaintiff as a shareholder of PZU.

The challenged resolution of the Ordinary Shareholder Meeting of PZU distributed the 2006 net profit of PLN 3,281 million as follows:

• PLN 3,261 million was transferred to supplementary capital;
• PLN 20 million was transferred to the Company Social Benefit Fund.

In its judgment of 22 January 2010, the Regional Court in Warsaw repealed the aforementioned resolution adopted by PZU’s Ordinary Shareholder Meeting in its entirety. PZU has used all the available appeal measures, including a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court which, on 27 March 2013, dismissed the cassation appeal. The judgment is final and non-appealable.

In PZU’ s opinion, the rescission of the resolution will not lead to the occurrence of a claim on the part of PZU shareholders for payment of a dividend.

As the judgment repealing Resolution No. 8/2007 became final, on 30 May 2012, Ordinary Shareholder Meeting of PZU adopted a resolution to distribute the profit for the financial year 2006 in a manner that reflects the distribution of profit in the repealed Resolution No. 8/2007. MSC filed an objection against the resolution of 30 May 2012 and the objection was recorded in the minutes.

On 20 August 2012, a copy of a statement of claim filed by MSC with the Regional Court in Warsaw was delivered to PZU. In the statement of claim, the Manchester Securities Corporation demanded that the resolution on the distribution of profit for the financial year 2006 adopted on 30 May 2012 by the PZU Ordinary Shareholder Meeting be repealed. According to the plaintiff, the value of the litigation is PLN 5 million. PZU then submitted a statement of defense requesting to dismiss the statement of claim in its entirety.

On 17 December 2013, the Regional Court passed a judgment in which it accepted the claim in its entirety and awarded the costs of proceedings from PZU to MSC. On 4 March 2014, PZU filed an appeal against the above judgment, contesting it in its entirety. On 11 February 2015, the Appellate Court in Warsaw handed down a judgment that changed the judgment of the Regional Court of 17 December 2013 in its entirety, dismissed MSC’s claim and charged MSC with the court expenses. The Appellate Court’s judgment is final and non-appealable. MSC challenged the Appellate Court’s judgment in its entirety in a cassation appeal of 9 June 2015. PZU filed its reply to the cassation appeal. By decision of 19 April 2016, the Supreme Court refused to review MSC’s cassation appeal. According to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court’s ruling is final non-appealable and ends the proceedings in the case.

In the meantime on 16 December 2014, MSC summoned PZU to pay PLN 265 million as compensation in connection with repealing Resolution No. 8/2007 adopted by the PZU Ordinary Shareholder Meeting on 30 June 2007 to distribute PZU’s profit for the financial year 2006. PZU refused to effect the performance on account of its groundlessness.

On 23 September 2015, a copy of the statement of claim with attachments was delivered to PZU in the case launched by MSC against PZU for payment of PLN 169 million with statutory interest from 2 January 2015 to the date of payment. The statement of claim includes a demand to pay compensation for depriving MSC and J.P. Morgan (MSC acquired the claim from J.P. Morgan) as minority shareholders of PZU of their share in profits for the financial year 2006 in connection with the adoption of Resolution No. 8/2007 on 30 June 2007 by the PZU Ordinary Shareholder Meeting. The case is pending before the Regional Court in Warsaw. On 18 December 2015, PZU’s attorney submitted a statement of defense, requesting that the claim be dismissed it in its entirety. On 1 April 2016, MSC filed a pleading in which it responded to PZU’s assertions, allegations and petitions and raised new arguments in the case. On 30 June 2016, PZU filed a response to MSC’s most recent pleading along with requests for evidence. In its decision of 21 July 2016, the Court referred the case to a mediation procedure, to which PZU did not agree. In subsequent court sessions, evidentiary hearings have taken place.

The Management Board of PZU believes that MSC’s claims are groundless. As a result, as at 31 December 2020, no changes were made to the presentation of PZU’s equity that could potentially stem from the repeal of resolution no. 8/2007 adopted by the PZU Ordinary Shareholder Meeting on the distribution of profit for the financial year 2006, including the line items “Supplementary capital” and “Retained earnings (losses)”, and the funds in the Company Social Benefit Fund were not adjusted.

Other demands for payment pertaining to the distribution of PZU’s profit for the 2006 financial year

On 13 November 2018 the Regional Court in Warsaw served a copy of the statement of claim lodged by Wspólna Reprezentacja SA in restructuring, which pertained to a claim against PZU for payment of PLN 34 million with statutory interest from 1 October 2015 to the payment date with court expenses. The claim comprises a claim for payment of damages for depriving the shareholders of their share of profits for the 2006 financial year. The plaintiff claims that the claims for damages were transferred by the shareholders to the plaintiff based on mandate agreements together with a fiduciary transfer of receivables and the claim pursued by the statement of claim is the total damage caused to the shareholders. PZU does not accept the claims as unjustified and submitted its statement of defense, requesting the claim to be dismissed it in its entirety. PZU did not consent to mediation. In subsequent court sessions, evidentiary hearings have taken place.

55.2 Proceedings conducted by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection against PZU

On 30 December 2011, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (“UOKiK”) issued a decision to impose a fine of PLN 57 million on PZU for its use of a practice restricting competition and violating the prohibition prescribed in Article 6 Section 1 Item 3 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection by the execution, by PZU and Maximus Broker Sp. z o.o. with its registered office in Toruń (“Maximus Broker”), of an agreement restricting competition in the domestic market for sales of group ADD insurance for children, youths and staff of educational institutions consisting of dividing the sales market by entity and transferring PZU’s clients from the Kujawsko-Pomorskie voivodship to Maximus Broker for the provision of services in exchange for their recommending PZU as the insurer of choice and at the same time prohibited PZU from the use of this alleged practice.

The PZU Management Board did not agree with the determination of facts and the legal argumentation in the decision, because not all the evidence was taken into account when making the decision and an erroneous legal qualification was made.

On 18 January 2012 PZU submitted an appeal against the aforementioned decision (as a result of which it did not become final). In its appeal, PZU indicated the following, among other issues:

• no agreement (other than a brokerage agreement) was entered into between PZU and Maximus Broker;
• the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection misunderstands the principles of execution of insurance agreements involving a broker;
• the majority of insurance agreements involving Maximus Broker were entered into with insurance companies other than PZU;
• PZU and Maximus Broker cannot and could not in the past conduct competitive activity in the markets in which they operate.

On 27 March 2015, the Regional Court in Warsaw issued a judgment in which it repealed the decision of the UOKiK President of 30 December 2011. By judgment of 6 December 2016, following an appeal of the UOKiK President, the Appellate Court in Warsaw repealed the judgment issued by the Regional Court in Warsaw and referred the case for re-examination. On 31 July 2017, the Regional Court in Warsaw issued a judgment in which it repealed the decision of the UOKiK President of 30 December 2011. On 4 October 2017, the UOKiK President filed an appeal with the Appellate Court in Warsaw. The Appellate Court in Warsaw, by its judgment of 23 January 2019, dismissed the appeal put forward by the UOKiK President. The judgment is final non-appealable. The UOKiK President has filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the final judgment, to which PZU has given its reply. The Supreme Court accepted the cassation appeal filed by the President of UOKiK for examination. On 10 June 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by the President of UOKiK, which finally closed the case.

Consequently, PZU derecognized the provision for the above penalty, recognizing revenue of PLN 57 million.

55.3 Notification of PZU’s claim to the bankruptcy estate of companies of the PBG Group

PZU is a creditor of PBG SA (“PBG”) and Hydrobudowa Polska SA (“Hydrobudowa”), both companies with registered offices in Wysogotowo near Poznań, on account of insurance guarantees (contractual guarantees) issued and paid out.

In 2012, bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against PBG and Hydrobudowa. On 21 September 2012, PZU joined the proceedings by notifying its claims to the bankruptcy estate of the two companies.

PBG and Hydrobudowa belong to the same group in which PBG is the parent company. The two companies provided sureties for each other’s liabilities. As a consequence, all claims submitted against the bankruptcy estate of Hydrobudowa in the amount of PLN 101 million were concurrently submitted against the bankruptcy estate of PBG.

On 8 October 2015, the Bankruptcy Court announced a decision in which it approved the composition with PBG’s creditors and on 20 July 2016 it issued a decision to close the bankruptcy proceedings. This decision is legally binding. Following the execution of the composition and reduction of claims to 20.93% of the reported receivables, PZU received 206,139 PBG bonds with a nominal value of PLN 21 million and 24,241,560 PBG shares with a nominal value of PLN 24 million. The carrying amount of PBG’s shares as at 31 December 2020 was PLN 1 million (PLN 0.3 million as at 31 December 2019). The bonds, whose carrying amount was assessed to be zero, were recognized in off-balance sheet records only as at 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2019.

The first list of claims presented by Hydrobudowa’s trustee in bankruptcy to the judge commissioner contained PZU SA’s claims in the amount of PLN 16 million and the fourth supplementary list of claims contained PZU SA’s claims in the amount of PLN 16 million. Accordingly, the total value of claims pursued by PZU on this account is PLN 32 million. In respect of claims for the amount of over PLN 66 million, on 24 October 2018 PZU filed an objection to the judge commissioner against the refusal to accept the submitted claim. With the decision of 23 January 2020 the Court accepted PZU’s objection and increased PZU’s claim on the fourth supplementary list of claims to PLN 83 million. The final list of claims submitted against the bankruptcy estate of Hydrobudowa has not been determined yet. Bankruptcy proceedings against Hydrobudowa are pending and the determination of the final list of claims is merely an initial step in these proceedings that precedes the drafting of the distribution plan (after the liquidation of the bankruptcy estate).

55.4 Class action against Alior Bank

On 5 March 2018, a natural person representing a group of 84 natural and legal persons filed a class action against Alior Bank to rule Alior Bank’s liability for a loss caused by the improper performance of Alior Bank’s disclosure obligations to clients and improper performance of agreements to provide services of accepting and forwarding purchase or sale orders of investment certificates of mutual funds managed previously by Fincrea TFI SA and currently by Raiffeisen Bank International AG (Spółka Akcyjna) Branch in Poland. With the decision of 27 September 2019 the court resolved to examine the case in a group procedure. Additionally, the PZU Group posits that the probability of outflow of funds on this account is estimated at a level below 50%, accordingly, as at 31 December 2020, no provision was established in relation to this action.

At the current stage, it is not possible to estimate the possible financial consequences for Alior Bank and the PZU Group if the court hands down a resolution other than the one assumed by the PZU Group.

55.5 KNF’s proceedings to impose a fine on Alior Bank

On 6 August 2019, KNF issued a decision pursuant to Article 167(2)(1) in conjunction with Article 167(1)(1) of the Act on Trading in Financial Instruments imposing a fine of PLN 10 million on Alior Bank (Alior Bank has paid the fine). The proceedings concerned the operation of Alior Bank and its Brokerage House in terms of the distribution of investment certificates of funds previously managed by Fincrea TFI SA and currently by Raiffeisen Bank International AG (Spółka Akcyjna), Poland Branch. After reexamining the case (at Alior Bank’s request), on 3 December 2019, KNF upheld the original decision, which Alior Bank challenged on 3 January 2020 with the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw. On 17 June 2020, the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw issued a judgment repealing the 3 December 2019 decision of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, which upheld the earlier 6 August 2019 decision of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, and discontinued the proceedings conducted by the KNF in the case.

KNF lodged a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration. As at the date of signing the consolidated financial statements, the Supreme Court of Administration did not review the appeal.