|
Commitments and Contingencies
|
12 Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dec. 31, 2014
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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, standby letters of credit (SBLCs) and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The table below includes the notional amount of unfunded legally binding lending commitments net of amounts distributed (e.g., syndicated) to other financial institutions of $15.7 billion and $21.9 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013. At December 31, 2014, the carrying value of these commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option, was $546 million, including deferred revenue of $18 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $528 million. At December 31, 2013, the comparable amounts were $503 million, $19 million and $484 million, respectively. The carrying value 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 $9.9 billion and $13.0 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013 that are accounted for under the fair value option. However, the table below excludes cumulative net fair value adjustments of $405 million and $354 million on these commitments, which are 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.
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.
Other Commitments
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Corporation had commitments to purchase loans (e.g., residential mortgage and commercial real estate) of $1.8 billion and $1.5 billion, which upon settlement will be included in loans or LHFS.
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated resale and securities borrowing agreements of $73.2 billion and $75.5 billion, and commitments to enter into forward-dated repurchase and securities lending agreements of $55.8 billion and $38.3 billion. 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 $2.6 billion, $2.3 billion, $1.9 billion, $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion for 2015 through 2019, respectively, and $4.9 billion in the aggregate for all years thereafter.
At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Corporation had unfunded equity investment commitments of $57 million and $195 million.
Other Guarantees
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 December 31, 2014 and 2013, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $13.6 billion and $13.4 billion and the Corporation’s maximum exposure related to these guarantees totaled $3.1 billion and $3.0 billion with estimated maturity dates between 2031 and 2039. The net fair value including the fee receivable associated with these guarantees was $25 million and $39 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013, 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 in the trading portfolio at fair value, which was insignificant at December 31, 2014. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $500 million and $4.6 billion with estimated maturity dates up to 2019 if the exit option is exercised on all deals. The decline in notional amount in 2014 was primarily the result of plan sponsors terminating contracts pursuant to exit options. As of December 31, 2014, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products.
Indemnifications
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 the early termination clause. 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.
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. In 2014 and 2013, the sponsored entities processed and settled $647.1 billion and $623.7 billion of transactions and recorded losses of $16 million and $15 million. A significant portion of this activity was processed by a joint venture in which the Corporation holds a 49 percent ownership. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the sponsored merchant processing servicers held as collateral $130 million and $203 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 and MasterCard for the last six months, which represents the claim period for the cardholder, plus any outstanding delayed-delivery transactions. As of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the maximum potential exposure for sponsored transactions totaled $269.3 billion and $258.5 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 potential for the Corporation to be required to make these payments is remote.
Prime Brokerage and Securities Clearing Services
In connection with its prime brokerage and clearing businesses, the Corporation performs securities clearance and settlement services on behalf of its clients with other brokerage firms and clearinghouses. 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.
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 by the Corporation. The total notional amount of these derivative contracts was $527 million and $1.8 billion with commercial banks and $1.2 billion and $1.3 billion with VIEs at December 31, 2014 and 2013. 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 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 $6.2 billion and $6.9 billion at December 31, 2014 and 2013. 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, which has subsequently been replaced by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), 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 $378 million and $381 million at December 31, 2014 and 2013. The Corporation recorded expense of $621 million and $258 million in 2014 and 2013. The increase in the provision was due primarily to the volume of new complaints not decreasing as expected. 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.
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 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 and governmental examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries, investigations, and threatened legal actions and proceedings. For example, 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 PRA, the FCA and other international, federal and state securities regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries, the Corporation and its subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of the Corporation’s regulated activities.
In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such litigation, regulatory and governmental 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, regulatory and governmental 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. As a litigation, regulatory or governmental 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. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Corporation does not establish an accrued liability. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation, regulatory or governmental 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, regulatory or governmental 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 $16.4 billion was recognized for 2014 compared to $6.1 billion for 2013.
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 material litigation, regulatory and governmental 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 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 those matters where an estimate of the range of possible loss is possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of possible loss is $0 to $2.7 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 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, 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.
Bond Insurance Litigation
Ambac Countrywide Litigation
The Corporation, Countrywide and other Countrywide entities are named as defendants in an action filed on September 29, 2010 and as amended on May 28, 2013, by Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation (together, Ambac), entitled Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. This action, currently pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County, relates to bond insurance policies provided by Ambac on certain securitized pools of second-lien (and in one pool, first-lien) HELOCs, first-lien subprime home equity loans and fixed-rate second-lien mortgage loans. Plaintiffs allege that they have paid claims as a result of defaults in the underlying loans and assert that the Countrywide defendants misrepresented the characteristics of the underlying loans and breached certain contractual representations and warranties regarding the underwriting and servicing of the loans. Plaintiffs also allege that the Corporation is liable based on successor liability theories. Damages claimed by Ambac are in excess of $2.2 billion and include the amount of payments for current and future claims it has paid or claims it will be obligated to pay under the policies, increasing over time as it pays claims under relevant policies, plus unspecified punitive damages.
On December 30, 2014, Ambac filed a second complaint in the same court against the same defendants, claiming fraudulent inducement against Countrywide and successor and vicarious liability against the Corporation relating to eight partially Ambac-insured RMBS transactions that closed between 2005 and 2007, all backed by negative amortization pay option adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) loans that were originated in whole or in part by Countrywide. Seven of the eight securitizations were issued and underwritten by non-parties to the litigation. Ambac claims damages in excess of $600 million consisting of all alleged past and future claims against its policies, plus other unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Also on December 30, 2014, Ambac filed a third action in Wisconsin Circuit Court, Dane County, against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., claiming that it was fraudulently induced to insure portions of five securitizations issued and underwritten in 2005 by a non-party that included Countrywide originated first-lien negative amortization pay option ARM loans. The complaint claims damages in excess of $350 million for all alleged past and future Ambac insured claims payment obligations plus other unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Ambac First Franklin Litigation
On April 16, 2012, Ambac sued First Franklin Financial Corp., BANA, MLPF&S, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. (MLML), 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 MLML, 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. Plaintiffs also assert breach of contract claims against BANA based upon its servicing of the loans in the securitization. The complaint alleges that Ambac has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and has accrued and continues to accrue tens of millions of dollars in additional claims, and Ambac seeks as damages the total claims it has paid and its projected claims payment obligations, as well as specific performance of defendants’ contractual repurchase obligations.
On July 19, 2013, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Ambac’s contract and fraud causes of action but granted dismissal of Ambac’s indemnification cause of action. In addition, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Ambac’s claims for attorneys’ fees and punitive damages.
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 CDS 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 have reviewed the evidence in the investigative file, responded to the Commission’s preliminary conclusions and attended 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.
Fontainebleau Las Vegas Litigation
On June 9, 2009, Avenue CLO Fund Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada by certain Fontainebleau Las Vegas, LLC (FBLV) project lenders. Plaintiffs alleged that, among other things, BANA breached its duties as disbursement agent under the agreement governing the disbursement of loaned funds to FBLV, then a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages of more than $700 million, plus interest. This action was subsequently transferred by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On March 19, 2012, the district court granted BANA’s motion for summary judgment on all causes of action against it in its capacity as disbursement agent and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on those claims. On July 26, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the disbursement agent claims against BANA, holding 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.
Dismissal of the other claims was affirmed on a separate appeal. On December 13, 2013, the JPML remanded the action to the District of Nevada for trial.
The parties have settled the action for $300 million, an amount that was fully accrued as of December 31, 2014. Pursuant to the settlement, plaintiffs have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of their remaining claims with prejudice.
In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation
Beginning in January 2009, the Corporation, as well as certain current and former officers and directors, among others, were named as defendants in a variety of actions filed in state and federal courts. The actions generally concern alleged material misrepresentations and/or omissions with respect to certain securities filings by the Corporation. The securities filings contained information with respect to events that took place from September 2008 through January 2009 contemporaneous with the Corporation’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch). Certain federal court actions were consolidated and/or coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) under the caption In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation.
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action (the Consolidated Securities Class Action) asserted claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and asserted damages based on the drop in the stock price upon subsequent disclosures. On April 5, 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement of the Consolidated Securities Class Action. On November 5, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the final approval of the settlement of the Consolidated Securities Class Action. On February 3, 2015, the deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court elapsed without any objector filing a petition.
Certain shareholders opted to pursue their claims apart from the Consolidated Securities Class Action. Following settlements in an aggregate amount that was fully accrued as of December 31, 2013, the District Court dismissed the claims of these plaintiffs with prejudice.
In addition, on January 11, 2013, the District Court approved the settlement of claims filed by plaintiffs in a derivative action in the Consolidated Securities Class Action, which also resolved a consolidated derivative action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
In addition, the District Court dismissed a complaint filed by plaintiffs in the ERISA actions in the Consolidated Securities Class Action on August 27, 2010, and the parties stipulated to the withdrawal of the appeal of that decision on January 14, 2013.
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 (BHCs), including the Corporation, as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the level of default interchange rates and that certain rules of Visa and MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the point of sale were unreasonable restraints of trade. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
On October 19, 2012, defendants settled the matter. The settlement provides for, among other things, (i) payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs totaling approximately $6.6 billion, allocated proportionately to each defendant based upon various loss-sharing agreements; (ii) distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 bps of default interchange across all Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions for a period of eight consecutive months, to begin by July 29, 2013, which otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time; and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding merchant point of sale practices.
The court granted final approval of the class settlement agreement on December 13, 2013. Several class members appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, a number of class members opted out of the settlement of their past damages claims. The cash portion of the settlement was adjusted downward as a result of these opt outs.
The Corporation is named in three of the opt-out suits, including one brought by cardholders, and, as a result of various sharing agreements from the main Interchange litigation, the Corporation remains liable for any settlement or judgment in opt-out suits where it is not named as a defendant. All but one of the opt-out suits filed to date have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 18, 2014, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss opt-out complaints filed by merchants, and on November 26, 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim in the cardholder complaint.
LIBOR, Other Reference Rate and Foreign Exchange (FX) Inquiries and Litigation
The Corporation has received subpoenas and information requests from government authorities in North America, Europe and the Asia Pacific region, including the DoJ, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the FCA, concerning submissions made by panel banks in connection with the setting of LIBOR and other reference rates. The Corporation is cooperating with these inquiries.
In addition, the Corporation and BANA have been named as defendants along with most of the other LIBOR panel banks in a series of individual and class actions in various U.S. federal and state courts relating to defendants’ LIBOR contributions. All cases naming the Corporation have been or are in the process of being consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the JPML. The Corporation expects that any future cases naming it will similarly be consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Plaintiffs allege that they held or transacted in U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based derivatives or other financial instruments and sustained losses 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 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), common law fraud, and breach of contract claims, and seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
In a series of rulings, the court dismissed antitrust, RICO and certain state law claims, while permitting the Commodity Exchange Act and other state law claims to proceed. As a result of a procedural ruling by the Supreme Court, plaintiffs are pursuing an immediate appeal of the dismissal of their antitrust claims. Further, based on the statute of limitations, the court has substantially limited the time period for which manipulation claims under the Commodity Exchange Act may be pursued. As to the Corporation and BANA, the court has also dismissed manipulation claims based on alleged trader conduct, and certain common law claims by plaintiffs who alleged no direct dealings with the Corporation or BANA. Other claims against the Corporation and BANA remain pending, however, and the court is continuing to consider motions regarding them, including the applicability of its prior rulings to subsequently filed actions.
Certain regulatory and government authorities in North America, Europe and the Asia Pacific region are conducting investigations and making inquiries of a significant number of FX market participants, including the Corporation, regarding FX market participants’ conduct and systems and controls over multiple years. The Corporation is cooperating with these investigations and inquiries, some of which are likely to lead to regulatory or legal proceedings and expose the Corporation to material penalties, fines or losses, and could adversely affect its reputation.
In particular, in November 2014, the Corporation resolved a matter with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) by agreeing to the imposition of mandatory remedial measures and payment of $250 million in civil penalties associated with the Corporation’s FX business and its systems and controls.
The Corporation is in separate advanced discussions to resolve the regulatory matters of concern to another U.S. banking regulator involving the Corporation’s FX business and its systems and controls. There can be no assurances that these discussions will lead to a resolution, or of the amount or timing of any such resolution.
In addition, in a consolidated amended complaint filed on March 31, 2014, the Corporation and BANA 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 on behalf of plaintiffs and a putative class who allegedly transacted in FX and are domiciled in the U.S. or transacted in FX in the U.S. (the U.S. Action). On April 30, 2014, a substantively similar class action was filed against the Corporation and other FX market participants on behalf of a plaintiff and putative class allegedly located in Norway (the Foreign Action). The complaints allege that class members transacted with defendants at or around the time of the fixing of the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates or entered into transactions that settled in whole or in part based on the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates and that they sustained losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged conspiracy to manipulate the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates. Plaintiffs in the U.S. Action assert a single claim for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, and plaintiff in the Foreign Action asserts claims for violations of the Sherman Act, as well as certain claims under New York statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the U.S. Action, finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the elements of an antitrust claim. In the same decision, the court granted with prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss the Foreign Action, finding that the Sherman Act does not apply extraterritorially, except in limited circumstances not present in the case, and that plaintiff had failed to plead an actionable state law claim.
Montgomery
The Corporation, several current and former officers and directors, Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS), MLPF&S and other unaffiliated underwriters have been named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Montgomery v. Bank of America, et al. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2011. Plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf of all persons who acquired certain series of preferred stock offered by the Corporation pursuant to a shelf registration statement dated May 5, 2006. Plaintiff’s claims arise from three offerings dated January 24, 2008, January 28, 2008 and May 20, 2008, from which the Corporation allegedly received proceeds of $15.8 billion. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and alleges that the prospectus supplements associated with the offerings: (i) failed to disclose that the Corporation’s loans, leases, CDOs and commercial MBS were impaired to a greater extent than disclosed; (ii) misrepresented the extent of the impaired assets by failing to establish adequate reserves or properly record losses for its impaired assets; (iii) misrepresented the adequacy of the Corporation’s internal controls in light of the alleged impairment of its assets; (iv) misrepresented the Corporation’s capital base and Tier 1 leverage ratio for risk-based capital in light of the allegedly impaired assets; and (v) misrepresented the thoroughness and adequacy of the Corporation’s due diligence in connection with its acquisition of Countrywide. The amended complaint seeks rescission, compensatory and other damages. On March 16, 2012, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 3, 2013, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint. On February 6, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion to amend to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 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 the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state securities laws and 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.
The Corporation, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and/or their affiliates may have claims for and/or may be subject to claims for contractual indemnification in connection with their various roles in regard to MBS.
On August 15, 2011, the JPML 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 (the Countrywide RMBS MDL).
Federal Home Loan Bank Litigation
On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLB San Francisco) filed an action in California Superior Court, San Francisco County, entitled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. FHLB San Francisco’s complaint asserts certain MBS Claims against BAS, Countrywide and several related entities in connection with its alleged purchase of 51 MBS offerings and one private placement issued and/or underwritten by those defendants between 2004 and 2007 and seeks rescission and unspecified damages. FHLB San Francisco dismissed the federal claims with prejudice on August 11, 2011. On September 8, 2011, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the state law claims. On December 20, 2013, FHLB San Francisco voluntarily dismissed its negligent misrepresentation claims with prejudice. On October 15, 2014, the court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to two Countrywide trusts that were to be part of a bellwether trial.
The parties have settled the action and other related actions for $420 million, as well as with respect to certain claims, additional consideration; all amounts were fully accrued as of December 31, 2014. Pursuant to the settlement, FHLB San Francisco has voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims with prejudice.
Luther Class Action Litigation and Related Actions
Beginning in 2007, a number of pension funds and other investors filed putative class action lawsuits alleging certain MBS Claims against Countrywide, several of its affiliates, MLPF&S, the Corporation, NB Holdings Corporation and certain other defendants. Those class action lawsuits concerned a total of 429 MBS offerings involving over $350 billion in securities issued by subsidiaries of Countrywide between 2005 and 2007. The actions, entitled Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., and Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., were all assigned to the Countrywide RMBS MDL court. On December 6, 2013, the court granted final approval to a settlement of these actions in the amount of $500 million. Beginning on January 14, 2014, a number of class members appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 asserts certain MBS Claims pertaining to 54 MBS offerings from 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, punitive damages and other unspecified relief. On April 17, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Prudential thereafter split its claims into two separate complaints, filing an amended complaint in the original action and a complaint in a separate action entitled Prudential Portfolios 2, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On February 5, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss those complaints, granting plaintiff leave to replead in certain respects.
Mortgage Repurchase Litigation
U.S. Bank 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, New York County, in a case entitled U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-10 v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (dba Bank of America Home Loans), Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Bank of America, N.A. and NB Holdings Corporation. U.S. Bank asserts that, as a result of alleged misrepresentations by CHL in connection with its sale of the loans, defendants must repurchase all the loans in the pool, or in the alternative that it must repurchase a subset of those loans as to which U.S. Bank alleges that defendants have refused specific repurchase demands. U.S. Bank asserts claims for breach of contract and seeks specific performance of defendants’ alleged obligation to repurchase the entire pool of loans (alleged to have an original aggregate principal balance of $1.75 billion) or alternatively the aforementioned subset (alleged to have an aggregate principal balance of “over $100 million”), together with reimbursement of costs and expenses and other unspecified relief. On May 29, 2013, the New York Supreme Court 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. On June 18, 2013, U.S. Bank filed its second amended complaint seeking to replead its claim for repurchase of all loans in the Trust. On February 13, 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the repleaded claim seeking repurchase of all mortgage loans in the Trust; plaintiff has appealed that order.
On November 13, 2014, the court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for leave to amend the complaint; defendants have appealed that order. The amended complaint alleges breach of contract based upon defendants’ failure to repurchase loans that were the subject of specific repurchase demands and also alleges breach of contract based upon defendants’ discovery, during origination and servicing, of loans with material breaches of representations and warranties.
U.S. Bank Summonses with Notice
On August 29, 2014, U.S. Bank, solely in its capacity as Trustee for seven securitization trusts (the Trusts), served seven summonses with notice commencing potential actions against First Franklin Financial Corporation, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., and Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc. in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The summonses indicate that defendants may be subject to breach of contract claims alleging that they 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. The summonses seek specific performance of defendants’ alleged obligation to repurchase breaching loans, declaratory judgment, compensatory, rescissory and other damages, and indemnity. On February 5, 2015, defendants demanded complaints on three of the Trusts. Defendants currently have until March 3, 2015 to demand the complaint with respect to one of the remaining Trusts, and until July 15, 2015 to demand complaints on the final three Trusts.
Ocala Investor Litigation
On November 25, 2009, BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation (BNP) and Deutsche Bank AG each filed claims (the 2009 Actions) against BANA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A and Deutsche Bank AG v. Bank of America, N.A. Plaintiffs allege that BANA failed to properly perform its duties as indenture trustee, collateral agent, custodian and depositary for Ocala Funding, LLC (Ocala), a home mortgage warehousing facility, resulting in the loss of plaintiffs’ investment in Ocala. Ocala was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (TBW), a home mortgage originator and servicer which is alleged to have committed fraud that led to its eventual bankruptcy. Ocala provided funding for TBW’s mortgage origination activities by issuing notes, the proceeds of which were to be used by TBW to originate home mortgages. Such mortgages and other Ocala assets in turn were pledged to BANA, as collateral agent, to secure the notes. Plaintiffs lost most or all of their investment in Ocala when, as the result of the alleged fraud committed by TBW, Ocala was unable to repay the notes purchased by plaintiffs and there was insufficient collateral to satisfy Ocala’s debt obligations. Plaintiffs allege that BANA breached its contractual, fiduciary and other duties to Ocala, thereby permitting TBW’s alleged fraud to go undetected. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief from BANA, including interest and attorneys’ fees, in an unspecified amount, but which plaintiffs allege exceeds $1.6 billion.
On March 23, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part BANA’s motions to dismiss the 2009 Actions. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on October 1, 2012 that included additional contractual, tort and equitable claims. On June 6, 2013, the court granted BANA’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for failure to sue, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and equitable relief.
On November 24, 2014, BANA moved for summary judgment and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment.
On February 19, 2015, BANA and BNP reached an agreement in principle to settle the 2009 actions for an amount not material to the Corporation’s results of operations, subject to the execution of a final settlement agreement.
O’Donnell Litigation
On February 24, 2012, Edward O’Donnell filed a sealed qui tam complaint under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and the False Claims Act against the Corporation, individually, and as successor to Countrywide, CHL and a Countrywide business division known as Full Spectrum Lending. On October 24, 2012, the DoJ filed a complaint-in-intervention to join the matter, adding BANA, Countrywide and CHL as defendants. The action is entitled United States of America, ex rel, Edward O’Donnell, appearing Qui Tam v. Bank of America Corp., et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint-in-intervention asserted certain fraud claims in connection with the sale of loans to FNMA and FHLMC by Full Spectrum Lending and by the Corporation and BANA. On January 11, 2013, the government filed an amended complaint which added Countrywide Bank, FSB (CFSB) and a former officer of the Corporation as defendants. The court dismissed False Claims Act counts on May 8, 2013. On September 6, 2013, the government filed a second amended complaint alleging claims under FIRREA concerning allegedly fraudulent loan sales to the GSEs between August 2007 and May 2008. On September 24, 2013, the government dismissed the Corporation as a defendant.
Following a trial, on October 23, 2013, a verdict of liability was returned against CHL, CFSB and BANA. On July 30, 2014, the court imposed a civil penalty of $1.3 billion on BANA. On February 3, 2015, the court denied the Corporation’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, a new trial. The Corporation will appeal the verdict and judgment.
Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System
The Corporation and several current and former officers were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System v. Bank of America, et al.
Following the filing of a complaint on February 2, 2011, plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2011 in which plaintiff sought to sue on behalf of all persons who acquired the Corporation’s common stock between February 27, 2009 and October 19, 2010 and “Common Equivalent Securities” sold in a December 2009 offering. The amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and alleged that the Corporation’s public statements: (i) concealed problems in the Corporation’s mortgage servicing business resulting from the widespread use of the Mortgage Electronic Recording System; (ii) failed to disclose the Corporation’s exposure to mortgage repurchase claims; (iii) misrepresented the adequacy of internal controls; and (iv) violated certain Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages.
On July 11, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint. All claims under the Securities Act were dismissed against all defendants, with prejudice. The motion to dismiss the claim against the Corporation under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act was denied. All claims under the Exchange Act against the officers were dismissed, with leave to replead. Defendants moved to dismiss a second amended complaint in which plaintiff sought to replead claims against certain current and former officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a). On April 17, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, sustaining Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the current and former officers.
Policemen’s Annuity Litigation
On April 11, 2012, the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, on its own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of 41 RMBS trusts collateralized mostly by Washington Mutual-originated (WaMu) mortgages, filed a proposed class action complaint against BANA and other unrelated parties in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago v. Bank of America, N.A. and U.S. Bank National Association. BANA and U.S. Bank are named as defendants in their capacities as trustees, with BANA (formerly LaSalle Bank National Association) having served as the original trustee and U.S. Bank having replaced BANA as trustee. Plaintiff asserted claims under the federal Trust Indenture Act as well as state common law claims. Plaintiff alleged that, in light of the performance of the RMBS at issue, and in the wake of publicly-available information about the quality of loans originated by WaMu, the trustees were required to take certain steps to protect plaintiff’s interest in the value of the securities, and that plaintiff was damaged by defendants’ failures to notify it of deficiencies in the loans and of defaults under the relevant agreements, to ensure that the underlying mortgages could properly be foreclosed, and to enforce remedies available for loans that contained breaches of representations and warranties. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages and/or equitable relief, and costs and expenses. The court dismissed some of the common law claims, but allowed the Trust Indenture Act claim and a claim for breach of contract to proceed. After the filing of two amended complaints and the consolidation of the case with a related matter filed on August 23, 2013, entitled Vermont Pension Investment Committee and the Washington State Investment Board v. Bank of America, N.A. and U.S. Bank National Association, 10 named plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on October 31, 2013, on behalf of two proposed classes of purchasers of 35 trusts collateralized mostly by WaMu-originated mortgages (later reduced to 34 trusts).
On June 5, 2014, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for an amount not material to the Corporation’s results of operations, subject to approval of plaintiffs’ boards. The settlement remains subject to final court approval and various conditions. On November 10, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, and scheduled a final approval hearing for March 12, 2015.
Takefuji Litigation
In April 2010, Takefuji Corporation (Takefuji) filed a claim against Merrill Lynch International and Merrill Lynch Japan Securities (MLJS) in Tokyo District Court. The claim concerns Takefuji’s purchase in 2007 of credit-linked notes structured and sold by defendants that resulted in a loss to Takefuji of approximately JPY29.0 billion (approximately $270 million) following an event of default. Takefuji alleges that defendants failed to meet certain disclosure obligations concerning the notes.
On July 19, 2013, the Tokyo District Court issued a judgment in defendants’ favor, a decision that Takefuji subsequently appealed to the Tokyo High Court. On August 27, 2014, the Tokyo High Court vacated the decision of the District Court and issued a judgment awarding Takefuji JPY14.5 billion (approximately $135 million) in damages, plus interest at a rate of five percent from March 18, 2008. On September 10, 2014, defendants filed an appeal with the Japanese Supreme Court.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||