50.1 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In its judgment of 22 January 2010, the Regional Court in Warsaw repealed the aforementioned resolution adopted by PZU’s Ordinary Shareholder Meeting in its entirety.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.

PZU believes that repealing the aforementioned resolution of the PZU’s Ordinary Shareholder Meeting will not give rise to shareholders’ claim for a dividend payout by PZU.

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to distribute the profit for the financial year 2006 in a manner that reflects the distribution of profit in the repealed resolution no. 8/2007.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distribution of profit for the financial year 2006 adopted on 30 May 2012 by the PZU Ordinary Shareholder Meeting be repealed.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 replied to the statement of claim, requesting to dismiss 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 2019, 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 replied to the statement of claim, requesting to dismiss it in its entirety. PZU did not consent to mediation. In subsequent court sessions, evidentiary hearings have taken place.