Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2018
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
In the normal course of business, the Corporation enters into a number of off-balance sheet commitments. These commitments expose the Corporation to varying degrees of credit and market risk and are subject to the same credit and market risk limitation reviews as those instruments recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Credit Extension Commitments
The Corporation enters into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, SBLCs and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The following table includes the notional amount of unfunded legally binding lending commitments net of amounts distributed (i.e., syndicated or participated) to other financial institutions. The distributed amounts were $10.7 billion and $11.0 billion at December 31, 2018 and 2017. At December 31, 2018, the carrying value of these commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option, was $813 million, including deferred revenue of $16 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $797 million. At December 31, 2017, the comparable amounts were $793 million, $16 million and $777 million, respectively. The carrying value of these commitments is classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Legally binding commitments to extend credit generally have specified rates and maturities. Certain of these commitments have adverse change clauses that help to protect the Corporation against deterioration in the borrower’s ability to pay.
The table below also includes the notional amount of commitments of $3.1 billion and $4.8 billion at December 31, 2018 and 2017 that are accounted for under the fair value option. However, the following table excludes cumulative net fair value of $169 million and $120 million at December 31, 2018 and 2017 on these commitments, which is classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities. For more information regarding the Corporation’s loan commitments accounted for under the fair value option, see Note 21 – Fair Value Option.
At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Corporation had commitments to purchase loans (e.g., residential mortgage and commercial real estate) of $329 million and $344 million, which upon settlement will be included in loans or LHFS, and commitments to purchase commercial loans of $463 million and $994 million, which upon settlement will be included in trading account assets.
At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Corporation had commitments to purchase commodities, primarily liquefied natural gas, of $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion, which upon settlement will be included in trading account assets.
At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Corporation had commitments to enter into resale and forward-dated resale and securities borrowing agreements of $59.7 billion and $56.8 billion, and commitments to enter into forward-dated repurchase and securities lending agreements of $21.2 billion and $34.3 billion. These commitments expire primarily within the next 12 months.
At both December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Corporation had a commitment to originate or purchase up to $3.0 billion, on a rolling 12-month basis, of auto loans and leases from a strategic partner. This commitment extends through November 2022 and can be terminated with 12 months prior notice.
The Corporation is a party to operating leases for certain of its premises and equipment. Commitments under these leases are approximately $2.4 billion, $2.2 billion, $2.0 billion, $1.7 billion and $1.3 billion for 2019 and the years through 2023, respectively, and $6.2 billion in the aggregate for all years thereafter.
Bank-owned Life Insurance Book Value Protection
The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection to insurance carriers who offer group life insurance policies to corporations, primarily banks. At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $9.8 billion and
$10.4 billion. At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the Corporation’s maximum exposure related to these guarantees totaled $1.5 billion and $1.6 billion, with estimated maturity dates between 2033 and 2039.
In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation enters into various agreements that contain indemnifications, such as tax indemnifications, whereupon payment may become due if certain external events occur, such as a change in tax law. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and were entered into in the normal course of business based on an assessment that the risk of loss would be remote. These agreements typically contain an early termination clause that permits the Corporation to exit the agreement upon these events. The maximum potential future payment under indemnification agreements is difficult to assess for several reasons, including the occurrence of an external event, the inability to predict future changes in tax and other laws, the difficulty in determining how such laws would apply to parties in contracts, the absence of exposure limits contained in standard contract language and the timing of any early termination clauses. Historically, any payments made under these guarantees have been de minimis. The Corporation has assessed the probability of making such payments in the future as remote.
In accordance with credit and debit card association rules, the Corporation sponsors merchant processing servicers that process credit and debit card transactions on behalf of various merchants. If the merchant processor fails to meet its obligation to reimburse the cardholder for disputed transactions, then the Corporation, as the sponsor, could be held liable for the disputed amount. In 2018 and 2017, the sponsored entities processed and settled $874.3 billion and $812.2 billion of transactions and recorded losses of $31 million and $28 million. A significant portion of this activity was processed by a joint venture in which the Corporation holds
a 49 percent ownership. The carrying value of the Corporation’s investment in the merchant services joint venture was $2.8 billion and $2.9 billion at December 31, 2018 and 2017, and is recorded in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and in All Other.
At December 31, 2018 and 2017, the maximum potential exposure for sponsored transactions totaled $348.1 billion and $346.4 billion. However, the Corporation believes that the maximum potential exposure is not representative of the actual potential loss exposure and does not expect to make material payments in connection with these guarantees.
Exchange and Clearing House Member Guarantees
The Corporation is a member of various securities and derivative exchanges and clearinghouses, both in the U.S. and other countries. As a member, the Corporation may be required to pay a pro-rata share of the losses incurred by some of these organizations as a result of another member default and under other loss scenarios. The Corporation’s potential obligations may be limited to its membership interests in such exchanges and clearinghouses, to the amount (or multiple) of the Corporation’s contribution to the guarantee fund or, in limited instances, to the full pro-rata share of the residual losses after applying the guarantee fund. The Corporation’s maximum potential exposure under these membership agreements is difficult to estimate; however, the Corporation has assessed the probability of making any such payments as remote.
Prime Brokerage and Securities Clearing Services
In connection with its prime brokerage and clearing businesses, the Corporation performs securities clearance and settlement services with other brokerage firms and clearinghouses on behalf of its clients. Under these arrangements, the Corporation stands ready to meet the obligations of its clients with respect to securities transactions. The Corporation’s obligations in this respect are secured by the assets in the clients’ accounts and the accounts of their customers as well as by any proceeds received from the transactions cleared and settled by the firm on behalf of clients or their customers. The Corporation’s maximum potential exposure under these arrangements is difficult to estimate; however, the potential for the Corporation to incur material losses pursuant to these arrangements is remote.
The Corporation has entered into additional guarantee agreements and commitments, including sold risk participation swaps, liquidity facilities, lease-end obligation agreements, partial credit guarantees on certain leases, real estate joint venture guarantees, divested business commitments and sold put options that require gross settlement. The maximum potential future payment under these agreements was approximately $5.9 billion at both December 31, 2018 and 2017. The estimated maturity dates of these obligations extend up to 2040. The Corporation has made no material payments under these guarantees. For more information on maximum potential future payments under VIE-related liquidity commitments at December 31, 2018, see Note 7 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities.
In the normal course of business, the Corporation periodically guarantees the obligations of its affiliates in a variety of transactions including ISDA-related transactions and non-ISDA related transactions such as commodities trading, repurchase agreements, prime brokerage agreements and other transactions.
Payment Protection Insurance
On June 1, 2017, the Corporation sold its non-U.S. consumer credit card business. Included in the calculation of the gain on sale, the
Corporation recorded an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for substantially all payment protection insurance exposure above reserves assumed by the purchaser.
Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees
The Corporation securitizes first-lien residential mortgage loans generally in the form of RMBS guaranteed by the GSEs or by GNMA in the case of FHA-insured, VA-guaranteed and Rural Housing Service-guaranteed mortgage loans, and sells pools of first-lien residential mortgage loans in the form of whole loans. In addition, in prior years, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold pools of first-lien residential mortgage loans and home equity loans as private-label securitizations or in the form of whole loans. In connection with these transactions, the Corporation or certain of its subsidiaries or legacy companies make and have made various representations and warranties. Breaches of these representations and warranties have resulted in and may continue to result in the requirement to repurchase mortgage loans or to otherwise make whole or provide indemnification or other remedies to sponsors, investors, securitization trusts, guarantors, insurers or other parties (collectively, repurchases).
Unresolved Repurchase Claims
Unresolved representations and warranties repurchase claims represent the notional amount of repurchase claims made by counterparties, typically the outstanding principal balance or the unpaid principal balance at the time of default. In the case of first-lien mortgages, the claim amount is often significantly greater than the expected loss amount due to the benefit of collateral and, in some cases, mortgage insurance or mortgage guarantee payments. Claims received from a counterparty remain outstanding until the underlying loan is repurchased, the claim is rescinded by the counterparty, the Corporation determines that the applicable statute of limitations has expired, or representations and warranties claims with respect to the applicable trust are settled, and fully and finally released.
The notional amount of unresolved repurchase claims at December 31, 2018 and 2017 was $14.4 billion and $17.6 billion. This balance included $6.2 billion and $6.9 billion of claims related to loans in specific private-label securitization groups or tranches where the Corporation owns substantially all of the outstanding securities or will otherwise realize the benefit of any repurchase claims paid. The balance also includes $1.5 billion of repurchase claims related to a single monoline insurer and is the subject of litigation.
During 2018, the Corporation received $283 million in new repurchase claims, including $201 million in claims that were deemed time-barred. During 2018, $3.5 billion in claims were resolved, including $2.2 billion of claims that were deemed time-barred and $1.1 billion related to settlements. Although the pace of new claims has declined, it is possible the Corporation will receive additional claims or file requests in the future.
Reserve and Related Provision
The reserve for representations and warranties obligations and corporate guarantees at December 31, 2018 and 2017 was $2.0 billion and $1.9 billion and is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and the related provision is included in other income in the Consolidated Statement of Income. The representations and warranties reserve represents the Corporation’s best estimate of probable incurred losses. This reserve considers a number of provisional settlements with sponsors, investors and trustees, some of which
are subject to trustee approval processes, which may include court proceedings. Future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for these exposures; however, the Corporation does not expect such amounts to be material. Future provisions for representations and warranties may be significantly impacted if actual experiences are different from the Corporation’s assumptions in predictive models. The Corporation has combined the range of reasonably possible losses that are in excess of the representations and warranties reserve with the litigation range of possible loss in excess of litigation reserves, as discussed in Litigation and Regulatory Matters in this Note. This is consistent with the reduction in outstanding representations and warranties exposure in comparison to prior periods resulting from the resolution of prior matters along with changes in the Corporation’s business model.
The reserve for representations and warranties exposures does not consider certain losses related to servicing, including foreclosure and related costs, fraud, indemnity, or claims (including for RMBS) related to securities law or monoline insurance litigation. Losses with respect to one or more of these matters could be material to the Corporation’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.
Litigation and Regulatory Matters
In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to many pending and threatened legal, regulatory and governmental actions and proceedings. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Corporation generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter.
In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Corporation establishes an accrued liability when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. As a matter develops, the Corporation, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. Once the loss contingency is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Corporation will establish an accrued liability and record a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Corporation continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Excluding expenses of internal and external legal service providers, litigation-related expense of $469 million and $753 million was recognized in 2018 and 2017.
For a limited number of the matters disclosed in this Note for which a loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, is reasonably possible in future periods, the Corporation is able to estimate a range of possible loss. In determining whether it is possible to estimate a range of possible loss, the Corporation reviews and evaluates its matters on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note, in cases in which the Corporation possesses sufficient appropriate information to estimate a range of possible loss, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed below. There may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but
such an estimate of the range of possible loss may not be possible. For such matters disclosed in this Note, where an estimate of the range of possible loss is possible, as well as for representations and warranties exposures, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss for these exposures is $0 to $1.9 billion in excess of the accrued liability, if any. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Therefore, this estimated range of possible loss represents what the Corporation believes to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Corporation’s maximum loss exposure.
Information is provided below regarding the nature of the litigation contingencies and, where specified, the amount of the claim associated with these loss contingencies. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Corporation. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond the Corporation’s control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Corporation’s results of operations or liquidity for any particular reporting period.
Ambac Bond Insurance Litigation
Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation (together, Ambac) have filed four separate lawsuits against the Corporation and its subsidiaries relating to bond insurance policies Ambac provided on certain securitized pools of HELOCs, first-lien subprime home equity loans, fixed-rate second-lien mortgage loans and negative amortization pay option adjustable-rate mortgage loans. Ambac alleges that they have paid or will pay claims as a result of defaults in the underlying loans and asserts that the defendants misrepresented the characteristics of the underlying loans and/or breached certain contractual representations and warranties regarding the underwriting and servicing of the loans. In those actions where the Corporation is named as a defendant, Ambac contends the Corporation is liable on various successor and vicarious liability theories.
Ambac v. Countrywide I
The Corporation, Countrywide and other Countrywide entities are named as defendants in an action filed on September 28, 2010 in New York Supreme Court. Ambac asserts claims for fraudulent inducement as well as breach of contract and seeks damages in excess of $2.2 billion, plus punitive damages.
On May 16, 2017, the First Department issued its decisions on the parties’ cross-appeals of the trial court’s October 22, 2015 summary judgment rulings. Ambac appealed the First Department’s rulings requiring Ambac to prove all of the elements of its fraudulent inducement claim, including justifiable reliance and loss causation; restricting Ambac’s sole remedy for its breach of contract claims to the repurchase protocol of cure, repurchase or substitution of any materially defective loan; and dismissing Ambac’s claim for reimbursements of attorneys’ fees. On June 27, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the First Department rulings that Ambac appealed.
Ambac v. Countrywide II
On December 30, 2014, Ambac filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court against the same defendants, claiming fraudulent inducement against Countrywide, and successor and vicarious liability against the Corporation. Ambac seeks damages in excess of $600 million, plus punitive damages. On December 19, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part Countrywide’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Ambac v. Countrywide IV
On July 21, 2015, Ambac filed an action in New York Supreme Court against Countrywide asserting the same claims for fraudulent inducement that Ambac asserted in the now-dismissed Ambac v. Countrywide III. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $350 million, plus punitive damages.
Ambac v. First Franklin
On April 16, 2012, Ambac filed an action against BANA, First Franklin and various Merrill Lynch entities, including Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPF&S), in New York Supreme Court relating to guaranty insurance Ambac provided on a First Franklin securitization sponsored by Merrill Lynch. The complaint alleges fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, including breach of contract claims against BANA based upon its servicing of the loans in the securitization. Ambac seeks as damages hundreds of millions of dollars that Ambac alleges it has paid or will pay in claims.
Deposit Insurance Assessment
On January 9, 2017, the FDIC filed suit against BANA in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging failure to pay a December 15, 2016 invoice for additional deposit insurance assessments and interest in the amount of $542 million for the quarters ending June 30, 2013 through December 31, 2014. On April 7, 2017, the FDIC amended its complaint to add a claim for additional deposit insurance and interest in the amount of $583 million for the quarters ending March 31, 2012 through March 31, 2013. The FDIC asserts these claims based on BANA’s alleged underreporting of counterparty exposures that resulted in underpayment of assessments for those quarters. BANA disagrees with the FDIC’s interpretation of the regulations as they existed during the relevant time period and is defending itself against the FDIC’s claims. Pending final resolution, BANA has pledged security satisfactory to the FDIC related to the disputed additional assessment amounts.
On March 27, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied BANA’s partial motion to dismiss certain of the FDIC’s claims.
Interchange and Related Litigation
In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation (Interchange), named Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank holding companies, including the Corporation, as defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix the level of default interchange rates and that certain rules of Visa and MasterCard were unreasonable restraints of trade. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and treble damages and injunctive relief.
On October 19, 2012, defendants reached a settlement with respect to the putative class actions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected. In 2018, defendants reached a
settlement with the representatives of the putative Rule 23(b)(3) damages class to contribute an additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion held in escrow from the prior settlement. The Corporation’s additional contribution is not material to the Corporation. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement with the putative Rule 23(b)(3) damages class in January 2019.
In addition, the putative Rule 23(b)(2) class action seeking injunctive relief is pending, and a number of individual merchant actions continue against the defendants, including one against the Corporation. As a result of various loss-sharing agreements, however, the Corporation remains liable for a portion of any settlement or judgment in individual suits where it is not named as a defendant.
LIBOR, Other Reference Rates, Foreign Exchange (FX) and Bond Trading Matters
Government authorities in the U.S. and various international jurisdictions continue to conduct investigations, to make inquiries of, and to pursue proceedings against, the Corporation and its subsidiaries regarding FX and other reference rates as well as government, sovereign, supranational and agency bonds in connection with conduct and systems and controls. The Corporation is cooperating with these inquiries and investigations and responding to the proceedings.
Foreign Exchange (FX)
The Corporation, BANA and MLPF&S were named as defendants along with other FX market participants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which plaintiffs allege that they sustained losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged conspiracy to manipulate the prices of OTC FX transactions and FX transactions on an exchange. Plaintiffs assert antitrust claims and claims for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and seek compensatory and treble damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 1, 2015, the Corporation, BANA and MLPF&S executed a final settlement agreement, in which they agreed to pay participating class members $187.5 million to settle the litigation. In 2018, the District Court granted final approval to the settlement.
The Corporation, BANA and certain Merrill Lynch entities have been named as defendants along with most of the other London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) panel banks in a number of individual and putative class actions by persons alleging they sustained losses on U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments as a result of collusion or manipulation by defendants regarding the setting of U.S. dollar LIBOR. Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims, including antitrust, CEA, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), Securities Exchange Act of 1934, common law fraud and breach of contract claims, and seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. All cases naming the Corporation and its affiliates relating to U.S. dollar LIBOR are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The District Court has dismissed all RICO claims, and dismissed all manipulation claims based on alleged trader conduct against Bank of America entities. The District Court has also substantially limited the scope of antitrust, CEA and various other claims, including by dismissing in their entirety certain individual and putative class plaintiffs’ antitrust claims for lack of standing and/or personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed by the District Court are pursuing appeals in the Second Circuit. Certain individual and putative class actions remain
pending in the District Court against the Corporation, BANA and certain Merrill Lynch entities.
On February 28, 2018, the District Court denied certification of proposed classes of lending institutions and persons that transacted in eurodollar futures, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently denied petitions filed by those plaintiffs for interlocutory appeals of those rulings. Also on February 28, 2018, the District Court granted certification of a class of persons that purchased OTC swaps and notes that referenced U.S. dollar LIBOR from one of the U.S. dollar LIBOR panel banks, limited to claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently denied a petition filed by the defendants for interlocutory appeal of that ruling.
Mortgage Appraisal Litigation
The Corporation and certain subsidiaries are named as defendants in two putative class action lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Waldrup and Williams, et al.). In November 2016, the actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Plaintiffs allege that in fulfilling orders made by Countrywide for residential mortgage appraisal services, a former Countrywide subsidiary, LandSafe Appraisal Services, Inc., arranged for and completed appraisals that were not in compliance with applicable laws and appraisal standards. Plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, compensatory and treble damages.
On February 8, 2018, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On May 22, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s ruling granting class certification.
Mortgage-backed Securities Litigation
The Corporation and its affiliates, Countrywide entities and their affiliates, and Merrill Lynch entities and their affiliates have been named as defendants in cases relating to their various roles in MBS offerings and, in certain instances, have received claims for contractual indemnification related to the MBS securities actions. Plaintiffs in these cases generally sought unspecified
compensatory and/or rescissory damages, unspecified costs and legal fees and generally alleged false and misleading statements. The indemnification claims include claims from underwriters of MBS that were issued by these entities, and from underwriters and issuers of MBS backed by loans originated by these entities.
Mortgage Repurchase Litigation
U.S. Bank - Harborview Repurchase Litigation
On August 29, 2011, U.S. Bank, National Association (U.S. Bank), as trustee for the HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10 (the Trust), a mortgage pool backed by loans originated by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (CHL), filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court against the Corporation and various subsidiaries alleging breaches of representations and warranties. This litigation has been stayed since March 23, 2017, pending finalization of the settlement discussed below.
On December 5, 2016, the defendants and certain certificate-holders in the Trust agreed to settle the litigation in an amount not material to the Corporation, subject to acceptance by U.S. Bank.
U.S. Bank - SURF/OWNIT Repurchase Litigation
On August 29, 2014 and September 2, 2014, U.S. Bank, as trustee for seven securitization trusts (the Trusts), served seven summonses with notice commencing actions against various subsidiaries of the Corporation in New York Supreme Court. The summonses advance breach of contract claims alleging that defendants breached representations and warranties related to loans securitized in the Trusts. The summonses allege that defendants failed to repurchase breaching mortgage loans from the Trusts, and seek specific performance of defendants’ alleged obligation to repurchase breaching loans, declaratory judgment, compensatory, rescissory and other damages, and indemnity.U.S. Bank has served complaints regarding six of the seven Trusts. In 2018, for those six Trusts, the defendants and certain certificate-holders agreed to settle the respective litigations in amounts not material to the Corporation, subject to acceptance by U.S. Bank.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef