Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Commitments and Contingencies

v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure
NOTE 10 – 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 Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. For additional information on commitments and contingencies, see Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Credit Extension Commitments

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 $24.1 billion and $27.1 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. At September 30, 2012, the carrying amount of these commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option, was $541 million, including deferred revenue of $23 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $518 million. At December 31, 2011, the comparable amounts were $741 million, $27 million and $714 million, respectively. The carrying amount of these commitments is classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Corporation's Consolidated Balance Sheet. The table below also includes the notional amount of commitments of $20.5 billion and $25.7 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 that are accounted for under the fair value option. However, the table below excludes fair value adjustments of $635 million and $1.2 billion 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 16 – Fair Value Option.

Credit Extension Commitments
 
 
 
September 30, 2012
(Dollars in millions)
Expire in
One Year
or Less
 
Expire After
One Year Through
Three Years
 
Expire After Three Years Through
Five Years
 
Expire After Five Years
 
Total
Notional amount of credit extension commitments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loan commitments
$
101,289

 
$
79,744

 
$
128,455

 
$
17,350

 
$
326,838

Home equity lines of credit
2,120

 
12,136

 
22,910

 
25,338

 
62,504

Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees (1)
28,959

 
13,467

 
4,499

 
221

 
47,146

Letters of credit
2,019

 
75

 
10

 
915

 
3,019

Legally binding commitments
134,387

 
105,422

 
155,874

 
43,824

 
439,507

Credit card lines (2)
424,328

 

 

 

 
424,328

Total credit extension commitments
$
558,715

 
$
105,422

 
$
155,874

 
$
43,824

 
$
863,835

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 31, 2011
Notional amount of credit extension commitments
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Loan commitments
$
96,291

 
$
85,413

 
$
120,770

 
$
15,009

 
$
317,483

Home equity lines of credit
1,679

 
7,765

 
20,963

 
37,066

 
67,473

Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees (1)
26,965

 
18,932

 
6,433

 
5,505

 
57,835

Letters of credit
2,828

 
27

 
5

 
383

 
3,243

Legally binding commitments
127,763

 
112,137

 
148,171

 
57,963

 
446,034

Credit card lines (2)
449,097

 

 

 

 
449,097

Total credit extension commitments
$
576,860

 
$
112,137

 
$
148,171

 
$
57,963

 
$
895,131

(1) 
The notional amounts of standby letters of credit and financial guarantees classified as investment grade and non-investment grade based on the credit quality of the underlying reference name within the instrument were $33.4 billion and $13.0 billion at September 30, 2012, and $39.2 billion and $17.8 billion at December 31, 2011. Amounts include consumer standby letters of credit of $725 million and $859 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
(2) 
Includes business card unused lines of credit.

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

Global Principal Investments and Other Equity Investments

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Corporation had unfunded equity investment commitments of $315 million and $772 million. In light of proposed Basel regulatory capital changes related to unfunded commitments, over the past two years, the Corporation has actively reduced these commitments in a series of sale transactions involving its private equity investments.

Other Commitments

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Corporation had commitments to purchase loans (e.g., residential mortgage and commercial real estate) of $1.7 billion and $2.5 billion, which upon settlement will be included in loans or LHFS.

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated resale and securities borrowing agreements of $98.9 billion and $67.0 billion and commitments to enter into forward-dated repurchase and securities lending agreements of $56.4 billion and $42.0 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 $790 million, $2.9 billion, $2.3 billion, $1.9 billion and $1.6 billion for the remainder of 2012 and the years through 2016, respectively, and $7.2 billion in the aggregate for all years thereafter.

The Corporation has entered into agreements with providers of market data, communications, systems consulting and other office-related services. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the minimum fee commitments over the remaining terms of these agreements totaled $1.6 billion and $1.9 billion.

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 September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $15.9 billion and $15.8 billion and the Corporation’s maximum exposure related to these guarantees totaled $3.4 billion at both September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 with estimated maturity dates between 2030 and 2040. As of September 30, 2012, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products. The possibility of surrender or other payment associated with these guarantees exists. The Corporation is in discussions with certain counterparties regarding potential early termination. The net fair value including the fee receivable associated with these guarantees was $35 million and $48 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 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 withdraw funds 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 purchaser can require the Corporation to purchase high-quality fixed-income securities, typically 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 significant 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 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 September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $20.2 billion and $28.8 billion with estimated maturity dates up to 2015 if the exit option is exercised on all deals. As of September 30, 2012, 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 nine months ended September 30, 2012, the sponsored entities processed and settled $153.9 billion and $442.7 billion of transactions and recorded losses of $3 million and $7 million. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, the sponsored entities processed and settled $128.2 billion and $323.1 billion of transactions and recorded losses of $2 million and $8 million. A significant portion of this activity was processed by a joint venture in which the Corporation holds a 49 percent ownership. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the sponsored merchant processing servicers held as collateral $210 million and $238 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 September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the maximum potential exposure for sponsored transactions totaled $256.4 billion and $236.0 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 Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the total notional amount of these derivative contracts was $3.1 billion and $3.2 billion with commercial banks and $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion with VIEs. 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 $3.2 billion and $3.7 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. 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 (FSA) 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 $410 million and $476 million at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The Corporation recorded expense of $267 million and $467 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 compared to $77 million for the nine-month period in 2011.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

The following supplements the disclosure in Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in Note 10 - Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012 (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, 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 New York Stock Exchange, the FSA and other domestic, international 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 $1.6 billion and $3.3 billion was recognized for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 compared to $566 million and $3.8 billion for the same periods in 2011.
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.

FIRREA and False Claims Act Litigation

On October 24, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the Corporation, Countrywide and certain related entities. 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 asserts certain fraud claims in connection with the sale of loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by a Countrywide business division known as Full Spectrum Lending from 2006 continuing through 2009 and asserts successor liability against the Corporation. Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, civil penalties pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and treble damages pursuant to the False Claims Act.

Interchange and Related Litigation

Defendants and class plaintiffs in In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation executed a settlement agreement, and on October 19, 2012, class plaintiffs filed the settlement agreement and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the court.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class filed an action in the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta entitled 1023986 Alberta Ltd. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. The claims and damages asserted are identical to those in Canada Heater and are similar to those in Watson, Bancroft-Snell and Quebec Inc.
Merrill Lynch Matters
Derivative Actions
On July 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the derivative action and scheduled a final settlement hearing for January 11, 2013.
Securities Actions
On September 27, 2012, the parties in In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation agreed in principle to settle the securities claims (referred to as the Merrill Lynch Class Action Settlement). The Corporation has agreed to pay $2.4 billion, an amount that was fully accrued as of September 30, 2012, and institute and/or continue certain corporate governance enhancements until January 1, 2015, including those relating to majority voting in director elections, annual disclosure of noncompliance with stock ownership guidelines, policies for a board committee regarding future acquisitions, the independence of the Board's compensation committee and its compensation consultants, and conducting an annual “say-on-pay” vote by shareholders. In exchange, Securities Plaintiffs will release their claims against all defendants. The agreement is subject to execution of a written settlement agreement and court approval.
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, Sections 10(b) and/or 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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/or (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 (including the National Credit Union Administration) 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 Judicial Panel on Multi-district 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 (the Countrywide RMBS MDL).
AIG Litigation
On August 31, 2012, in the Countrywide RMBS MDL proceeding, AIG filed an amended complaint, which added claims against the Corporation and certain related entities for constructive fraudulent conveyance and intentional fraudulent conveyance. The amended complaint also revised various factual allegations, added claims concerning certain transactions and deleted claims concerning other transactions.
Bayerische Landesbank, New York Branch (Countrywide) Litigation
On September 27, 2012, the case was settled for an amount not material to the Corporation's results of operations.

Dexia Litigation
On September 27, 2012, the case was settled for an amount not material to the Corporation's results of operations.
FHFA Litigation
On August 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the UBS defendants' application for an interlocutory appeal in FHFA v. UBS Americas, Inc., et al.
On October 18, 2012, in FHFA v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as part of the Countrywide RMBS MDL, the court dismissed as untimely FHFA's Section 11 claims as to 24 of the 86 MBS allegedly purchased by FNMA and FHLMC, but otherwise denied the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations and statute of repose grounds. 

Luther Litigation and Related Actions
On August 31, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. and Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. to the California Superior Court.
Sealink Litigation
On September 27, 2012, the case was settled for an amount not material to the Corporation's results of operations.
Ocala Litigation
In the bankruptcy proceeding filed by Ocala Funding, LLC (Ocala), on August 23, 2012, the court approved an agreement among the parties pursuant to which BANA in its representative capacities as indenture trustee, depositary, custodian and collateral agent assigned certain claims to the Ocala bankruptcy estate.
In exchange, the estate assigned certain claims against BANA relating to the alleged conversion of mortgage loans and other assets allegedly owned by Ocala to BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank AG, the plaintiffs in the 2009 Actions. The remainder of the parties' proposed bankruptcy plan remains subject to approval by the bankruptcy court.