Proceedings are pending before various domestic and international courts and the International Court of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in Washington, with both uncertain timing and content of the decision. Although it is true that relatively long time ago it was ruled on the nullity of banks' power to unilaterally change the interest rate and in this sense the partial nullity of credit agreements, as well as the nullity of the currency clause in CHF, new controversies have emerged over time (from the deadlines for suing onwards). The collective dispute (and the decisions in it) is not the only one in which what is known as the CHF case is decided, there are many individual cases, but also the mentioned arbitration before ICSID. Banks have (apparently irreversibly) lost their privileged position, but this has not led (at least not in large numbers) to out-of-court settlements, even when it is completely certain what the court decision will be. Banks can obviously suffer court costs, but they clearly favor postponing any payment, believing that it suits them better than the parties. However, banks are not the only ones who do not seem to have learned much. Even less has the state learned in the broadest sense of the word, a state that then, when it was most needed, when the whole problem arose, did absolutely nothing. Accepting the firefighter's vocabulary "did not put out a small fire until it became huge, catastrophic in every way." Later, the state became active, but with achievements that are more than modest so far and with uncertainty about what will happen with the arbitration in Washington.