Even if Erste were to reach a deal with the SIFs when it comes to BCR, at any time, any minority shareholder could demand that the bank honor its commitment to take the bank public, undertaken through the privatization contract, lawyer Cristian Duțescu says. He gave us the following interview, discussing the issue of the listing of BCR.

Reporter: Is the agreement to postpone the listing of BCR legal or not? Did the SIFs need a power of attorney to conclude an agreement concerning the postponing of this listing?

Cristian Duţescu: I think that the issue here is whether the obligations to report and to inform shareholders have been fully honored. I can"t say whether it is legal or not, because I haven"t seen the contract. We don"t know what commitments the SIFS have made through that agreement, we just know that it was used to postpone the listing of BCR.

I think it would have been fair for the shareholders of the SIF to lobby for the terms of the agreement to be made public. After all it is a legal document concluded based on the privatization agreement, a contract which is public...

Reporter: Is the supermajority clause currently in effect? Or will it come into effect if Erste doesn"t fulfill the obligations undertaken through the contract?

Cristian Duţescu: The supermajority clause was not only intended to benefit the SIFs, but the other minority shareholders of BCR as well. They could come to the conclusion that they have been prejudiced by the agreement to postpone the listing of 2009.

The supermajority clause may not come into effect due to the agreement to postpone the listing. According to art. 13.2 letter g) of the privatization contract, Erste was required to summon an extraordinary general shareholder meeting in which it would vote on reactivating art. 16 of the statute of BCR concerning the supermajority clause for