|
Commitments and Contingencies
|
6 Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2013
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. For more information on commitments and contingencies, see Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
The Corporation enters into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, standby letters of credit and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The Credit Extension Commitments table includes the notional amount of unfunded legally binding lending commitments net of amounts distributed (e.g., syndicated) to other financial institutions of $22.1 billion and $23.9 billion at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. At June 30, 2013, the carrying amount of these commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option, was $493 million, including deferred revenue of $19 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $474 million. At December 31, 2012, the comparable amounts were $534 million, $21 million and $513 million, respectively. The carrying amount of these commitments is classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The table below also includes the notional amount of commitments of $15.9 billion and $18.3 billion at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 that are accounted for under the fair value option. However, the table below excludes cumulative net fair value adjustments of $486 million and $528 million on these commitments, which are classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities. For information regarding the Corporation's loan commitments accounted for under the fair value option, see Note 17 – Fair Value Option.
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.
At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Corporation had unfunded equity investment commitments of $234 million and $307 million.
At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Corporation had commitments to purchase loans (e.g., residential mortgage and commercial real estate) of $2.0 billion and $1.3 billion, which upon settlement will be included in loans or LHFS.
At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated resale and securities borrowing agreements of $94.1 billion and $67.3 billion, and commitments to enter into forward-dated repurchase and securities lending agreements of $58.9 billion and $42.3 billion. All of these commitments expire within the next 12 months.
The Corporation is a party to operating leases for certain of its premises and equipment. Commitments under these leases are approximately $1.5 billion, $2.7 billion, $2.3 billion, $2.0 billion and $1.6 billion for the remainder of 2013 and the years through 2017, respectively, and $6.9 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. The book value protection is provided on portfolios of intermediate investment-grade fixed-income securities and is intended to cover any shortfall in the event that policyholders surrender their policies and market value is below book value. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $13.3 billion and $13.4 billion and the Corporation's maximum exposure related to these guarantees for both periods totaled $3.0 billion with estimated maturity dates between 2030 and 2040. The net fair value including the fee receivable associated with these guarantees was $45 million and $52 million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and reflects the probability of surrender as well as the multiple structural protection features in the contracts.
Employee Retirement Protection
The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection primarily to plan sponsors of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governed pension plans, such as 401(k) plans and 457 plans. The book value protection is provided on portfolios of intermediate/short-term investment-grade fixed-income securities and is intended to cover any shortfall in the event that plan participants continue to make qualified withdrawals after all securities have been liquidated and there is remaining book value. The Corporation retains the option to exit the contract at any time. If the Corporation exercises its option, the investment manager will either terminate the contract or convert the portfolio into a high-quality fixed-income portfolio, typically all government or government-backed agency securities, with the proceeds of the liquidated assets to assure the return of principal. To manage its exposure, the Corporation imposes restrictions and constraints on the timing of the withdrawals, the manner in which the portfolio is liquidated and the funds are accessed, and the investment parameters of the underlying portfolio. These constraints, combined with significant structural protections, are designed to provide adequate buffers and guard against payments even under extreme stress scenarios. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $10.2 billion and $18.4 billion with estimated maturity dates up to 2015 if the exit option is exercised on all deals. The decline in notional amount in 2013 was primarily the result of plan sponsors surrendering the contracts or non-renewal of maturing contracts. As of June 30, 2013, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products.
Merchant Services
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. In connection with these services, a liability may arise in the event of a billing dispute between the merchant and a cardholder that is ultimately resolved in the cardholder's favor. If the merchant defaults on its obligation to reimburse the cardholder, the cardholder, through its issuing bank, generally has until six months after the date of the transaction to present a chargeback to the merchant processor, which is primarily liable for any losses on covered transactions. However, 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. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, the sponsored entities processed and settled $157.9 billion and $306.2 billion of transactions and recorded losses of $4 million and $8 million. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012, the sponsored entities processed and settled $155.6 billion and $288.8 billion of transactions and recorded losses of $2 million and $4 million. A significant portion of this activity was processed by a joint venture in which the Corporation holds a 49 percent ownership. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the sponsored merchant processing servicers held as collateral $216 million and $202 million of merchant escrow deposits which may be used to offset amounts due from the individual merchants.
The Corporation believes the maximum potential exposure for chargebacks would not exceed the total amount of merchant transactions processed through Visa, MasterCard and Discover for the last six months, which represents the claim period for the cardholder, plus any outstanding delayed-delivery transactions. As of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the maximum potential exposure for sponsored transactions totaled $256.0 billion and $263.9 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.
Other Derivative Contracts
The Corporation funds selected assets, including securities issued by CDOs and CLOs, through derivative contracts, typically total return swaps, with third parties and VIEs that are not consolidated on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the total notional amount of these derivative contracts was $2.4 billion and $2.9 billion with commercial banks and $1.4 billion with VIEs for both periods. The underlying securities are senior securities and substantially all of the Corporation's exposures are insured. Accordingly, the Corporation's exposure to loss consists principally of counterparty risk to the insurers. In certain circumstances, generally as a result of ratings downgrades, the Corporation may be required to purchase the underlying assets, which would not result in additional gain or loss to the Corporation as such exposure is already reflected in the fair value of the derivative contracts.
Other Guarantees
The Corporation has entered into additional guarantee agreements and commitments, including lease-end obligation agreements, partial credit guarantees on certain leases, real estate joint venture guarantees, sold risk participation swaps, divested business commitments and sold put options that require gross settlement. The maximum potential future payment under these agreements was approximately $3.6 billion and $3.1 billion at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The estimated maturity dates of these obligations extend up to 2033. The Corporation has made no material payments under these guarantees.
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 Claims Matter
In the U.K., the Corporation previously sold payment protection insurance (PPI) through its international card services business to credit card customers and consumer loan customers. PPI covers a consumer's loan or debt repayment if certain events occur such as loss of job or illness. In response to an elevated level of customer complaints across the industry, heightened media coverage and pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.K. Financial Services Authority investigated and raised concerns about the way some companies have handled complaints related to the sale of these insurance policies. In connection with this matter, the Corporation established a reserve for PPI. The reserve was $312 million and $510 million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012. The Corporation recorded $29 million of expense for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 compared to none and $200 million for the same periods in 2012. It is reasonably possible that the Corporation will incur additional expense related to PPI claims; however, the amount of such additional expense cannot be reasonably estimated.
The following supplements the disclosure in Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2013 (the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure).
In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to many pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. These actions and proceedings are generally based on alleged violations of consumer protection, securities, environmental, banking, employment, contract and other laws. In some of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Corporation and its subsidiaries.
In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are also subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. Certain subsidiaries of the Corporation are registered broker/dealers or investment advisors and are subject to regulation by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the European Commission, the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and other international, federal and state securities regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by those agencies, such subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities.
In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such litigation and regulatory 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 what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be.
In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Corporation establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters 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. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Corporation does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory 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. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. Once the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Corporation will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency 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 or external legal service providers, litigation-related expense of $471 million and $2.7 billion was recognized for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013 compared to $963 million and $1.8 billion for the same periods in 2012.
For a limited number of the matters disclosed in this Note, and in the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure, for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible in future periods, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Corporation is able to estimate a range of possible loss. In determining whether it is possible to provide an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, the Corporation reviews and evaluates its material litigation and regulatory matters on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. These may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on dispositive motions, settlement discussions, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. In cases in which the Corporation possesses sufficient appropriate information to develop an estimate of loss or 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 may not be possible. For those matters where an estimate is possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of possible loss is $0 to $2.8 billion in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. 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. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range. 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, or in the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure, regarding the nature of all of these 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, and in the prior commitments and contingencies disclosure, 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 cash flows for any particular reporting period.
Ambac Litigation
On April 16, 2012, Ambac Assurance Corp. and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp. (together, Ambac) sued First Franklin Financial Corp., BANA, MLPF&S, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. in New York Supreme Court, New York County. Plaintiffs' claims relate to guaranty insurance Ambac provided on a First Franklin securitization (Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-FFC). The securitization was sponsored by a Merrill Lynch entity, and certain certificates in the securitization were insured by Ambac. The complaint alleges that defendants breached representations and warranties concerning the origination of the underlying mortgage loans and asserts claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract and indemnification. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 13, 2012. On July 19, 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Ambac's contract and fraud causes of action. In addition, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss Ambac's claims for attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The court also dismissed Ambac's indemnification cause of action.
Countrywide Bond Insurance Litigation
Ambac
On May 28, 2013, Ambac Assurance Corp. filed a second amended complaint that, with respect to the successor liability theories Ambac had previously asserted, alleged an additional claim that the Corporation is the alter ego of Countrywide and other Countrywide entities.
Credit Card Debt Cancellation and Identity Theft Protection Products
FIA has received inquiries from and has been in discussions with regulatory authorities to address concerns regarding the sale and marketing of certain optional credit card debt cancellation products. The Corporation may be subject to a regulatory enforcement action and required to pay restitution or provide other relief to customers, and/or pay penalties to one or more regulators.
In addition, BANA and FIA have been in discussions with regulatory authorities to address concerns that some customers may have paid for but did not receive certain benefits of optional identity theft protection services from third-party vendors of BANA and FIA, including whether appropriate oversight of such vendors existed. The Corporation has issued and will continue to issue refund checks to impacted customers and may be subject to a regulatory enforcement action requiring payment of additional restitution or other relief to customers, and/or payment of penalties to one or more regulators.
European Commission – Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Investigation
On July 1, 2013, the European Commission (Commission) announced that it had addressed a Statement of Objections (SO) to the Corporation, BANA and Banc of America Securities LLC (together, the Bank of America Entities); a number of other financial institutions; Markit Group Limited; and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (together, the Parties). The SO sets forth the Commission's preliminary conclusion that the Parties infringed European Union competition law by participating in alleged collusion to prevent exchange trading of credit default swaps and futures. According to the SO, the conduct of the Bank of America Entities took place between August 2007 and April 2009. As part of the Commission's procedures, the Parties will be given the opportunity to review the evidence in the investigative file, respond to the Commission's preliminary conclusions and request a hearing before the Commission. If the Commission is satisfied that its preliminary conclusions are proved, the Commission has stated that it intends to impose a fine and require appropriate remedial measures. However, given the early stage of this matter, it is not possible to estimate the amount of any fine or what remedial measures may be required.
Fontainebleau Las Vegas Litigation
On July 26, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's dismissal of the disbursement agent claims against BANA in the Avenue Action. The Eleventh Circuit, affirming in part and reversing in part, held that there were factual disputes that could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation
Consolidated Securities Class Action
Certain members of the securities class in the Consolidated Securities Class Action have appealed the district court's final approval of the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Interchange and Related Litigation
Certain class members have opted out of the settlement and there have been a number of new filings in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of New York related to these opt outs.
LIBOR and Other Reference Rate Inquiries and Litigation
On June 14, 2013, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) took administrative action against 20 banks, including BANA (Singapore Branch), for deficiencies in governance, risk management, internal controls and surveillance systems from 2007 to 2011 related to their submission processes for Singapore dollar interest rate benchmarks (specifically, SIBOR and SOR) and Foreign Exchange spot benchmarks. The MAS is requiring that all 20 banks adopt measures to address these deficiencies, report their progress in addressing these deficiencies on a quarterly basis, and conduct independent reviews to ensure the robustness of their remedial measures. Nineteen of the banks must also set aside an increased statutory reserve with the MAS at zero percent interest for one year, with BANA (Singapore Branch) required to set aside 700 million Singapore Dollars (approximately $551 million U.S. dollars at a conversion rate of 0.7881 as of July 1, 2013).
Mortgage-backed Securities Litigation
The Corporation and its affiliates, Countrywide entities and their affiliates, and/or Merrill Lynch entities and their affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of cases relating to their various roles as issuer, originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, underwriter and/or controlling entity in MBS offerings, pursuant to which the MBS investors were entitled to a portion of the cash flow from the underlying pools of mortgages. These cases generally include purported class action suits and actions by individual MBS purchasers. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the registration statements, prospectuses and prospectus supplements for securities issued by securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, in violation of Sections 11, 12 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, state securities laws, and/or other state statutory and common laws.
These cases generally involve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the process by which the properties that served as collateral for the mortgage loans underlying the MBS were appraised; (ii) the percentage of equity that mortgage borrowers had in their homes; (iii) the borrowers' ability to repay their mortgage loans; (iv) the underwriting practices by which those mortgage loans were originated; (v) the ratings given to the different tranches of MBS by rating agencies; and (vi) the validity of each issuing trust's title to the mortgage loans comprising the pool for that securitization (collectively, MBS Claims). Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified costs and legal fees and, in some instances, seek rescission. A number of other entities have threatened legal actions against the Corporation and its affiliates, Countrywide entities and their affiliates, and/or Merrill Lynch entities and their affiliates concerning MBS offerings.
On August 15, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered multiple federal court cases involving Countrywide MBS consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in a multi-district litigation entitled In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation.
AIG Litigation
On June 27, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied with prejudice AIG's motion for leave to amend its successor liability claims, based upon fraudulent conveyance theories, against the Corporation. AIG filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 12, 2013, which reduced the number of offerings and private placements to 322, and reduced AIG's claimed damages to $9 billion.
Prudential Insurance Litigation
On March 14, 2013, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain of its affiliates (collectively Prudential) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in a case entitled Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. Prudential has named the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and a number of related entities as defendants. Prudential's complaint asserts certain MBS Claims pertaining to 54 MBS offerings in which Prudential alleges that it purchased securities between 2004 and 2007. Prudential seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, treble damages, punitive damages and other unspecified relief.
FHFA Litigation
On June 7, 2013, in Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied with prejudice FHFA's motion for leave to amend its successor liability claims, based upon fraudulent conveyance theories, against the Corporation.
Regulatory and Governmental Investigations
The Corporation has received a number of subpoenas and other requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities regarding MBS and other mortgage-related matters, including inquiries, investigations and potential proceedings related to a number of transactions involving the Corporation's underwriting and issuance of MBS and its participation in certain CDO offerings. These inquiries and investigations include, among others, an investigation by the SEC related to Merrill Lynch's risk control, valuation, structuring, marketing and purchase of CDOs, and investigations by the DOJ, the SEC and the New York State Attorney General (the NYAG) concerning the purchase, securitization and underwriting of mortgage loans and RMBS. The Corporation has provided documents and testimony, and continues to cooperate fully with these inquiries and investigations.
The Corporation has been advised by the staff of the DOJ that it intends to file civil charges against Bank of America entities arising from one or two jumbo prime securitizations. The staff of the SEC has advised that they intend to recommend civil charges concerning one of those securitizations. The staff of the NYAG has advised that they intend to recommend filing an action against Merrill Lynch arising from their RMBS investigation. In addition, the staff of the SEC has advised that it is considering recommending civil charges against Merrill Lynch arising from its CDO investigation. The Corporation has been in active discussions with senior staff of each government entity in connection with the respective investigations and to explain why the threatened civil charges are not appropriate.
Mortgage Repurchase Litigation
Policemen's Annuity Litigation
On May 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court confirmed its prior holding that the Trust Indenture Act applied to the RMBS certificates at issue, and held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that defendants violated both the Trust Indenture Act and their contractual obligations by allegedly failing to give notice to the servicer and to certificate holders of certain alleged defects in the loans at issue.
U.S. Bank Litigation
On May 29, 2013, the New York Supreme Court, New York County dismissed U.S. Bank's claim for repurchase of all the mortgage loans in the Trust. The court granted U.S. Bank leave to amend this claim. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss U.S. Bank's claim that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. allegedly refused to repurchase specific mortgage loans which were the subject of prior repurchase demands. On June 18, 2013, U.S. Bank filed its second amended complaint seeking to re-plead its claim for repurchase of all loans in the Trust.
Ocala Litigation
Ocala Investor Actions
On June 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order granting BANA's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for failure to sue, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and equitable relief.
FDIC Action
On May 3, 2013, the FDIC filed a motion to dismiss BANA's claims against the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for Colonial Bank, citing a Notice of No Value Determination, dated April 15, 2013, published by the FDIC in the Federal Register, 78 Fed. Reg. 76, 23565 (the No Value Determination). On July 22, 2013, BANA filed a complaint against the FDIC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entitled Bank of America, N.A. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, challenging the FDIC's No Value Determination.
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied BANA's motion seeking certification for interlocutory appeal of the court's December 10, 2012 ruling.
Ocala Bankruptcy
On June 20, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida signed the Ocala plan confirmation order and the plan became effective on July 1, 2013.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||