XML 74 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.1
Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Matters
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Matters LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND REGULATORY MATTERS
In the normal course of business, from time to time, we have been named as a defendant in various legal proceedings, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with our business activities. Certain of the legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages, or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. We are also involved, from time to time, in reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental agencies regarding our business (collectively, “regulatory matters”), which could subject us to significant fines, penalties, obligations to change our business practices or other requirements resulting in increased expenses, diminished income and damage to our reputation. We contest liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we establish an accrued liability for legal and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies which are both probable and reasonably estimable.
Legal proceedings and regulatory matters are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance, and we may be exposed to losses in excess of any amounts accrued.
For some matters, we are able to determine that an estimated loss, while not probable, is reasonably possible. For other matters, including those that have not yet progressed through discovery and/or where important factual information and legal issues are unresolved, we are unable to make such an estimate. We currently estimate that the reasonably possible losses for legal proceedings and regulatory matters, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, and for which we are able to estimate a possible loss, are immaterial. This represents management’s estimate of possible loss with respect to these matters and is based on currently available information. This estimate of possible loss does not represent our maximum loss exposure. The legal proceedings and regulatory matters underlying the estimate will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from current estimates.
Our estimate of reasonably possible losses involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the proceedings, the existence of numerous yet to be resolved issues, the breadth of the claims (often spanning multiple years), unspecified damages and/or the novelty of the legal issues presented. Based on our current knowledge, we do not believe that we are a party to any pending legal proceeding or regulatory matters that would have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, in light of the uncertainties involved in such matters, the ultimate outcome of a particular matter could be material to our operating results for a particular period depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our earnings for that period, and could adversely affect our business and reputation.
Below is a description of certain of our regulatory matters and legal proceedings.
Regulatory Matters
On October 30, 2014, the United States Trustee, which is part of the Department of Justice, filed an application in In re Nyree Belton, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York for orders authorizing discovery of the Bank pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, related to an investigation of the Bank’s credit reporting. The discovery, which is ongoing, concerns allegations made in Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, a putative class action adversary proceeding pending in the same Bankruptcy Court. In the Belton adversary proceeding, which was filed on April 30, 2014, plaintiff alleges that the Bank violates the discharge injunction under Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by attempting to collect discharged debts and by failing to update and correct credit information to credit reporting agencies to show that such debts are no longer due and owing because they have been discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. On December 15, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order staying the adversary proceeding pending an appeal to the District Court of the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying the Bank’s motion to compel arbitration. On October 14, 2015, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court and on November 4, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Bank's motion to compel arbitration. On March 4, 2019, on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the District Court vacated its decision reversing the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision denying the Bank’s motion to compel arbitration.
On May 9, 2017, the Bank received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB seeking information related to the marketing and servicing of deferred interest promotions.
Other Matters
The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a result of phone calls made by the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without specifying an aggregate amount. Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April 7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank. Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank as an additional defendant. Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information concerning the Company’s underwriting practices and private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with statements in the offering materials for the Company’s December 1, 2017 note offering. The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and November 1, 2018. The amended complaint names as additional defendants two additional Company officers, the Company’s board of directors, and the underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note offering. The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al. On March 31, 2020, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On April 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.
On January 28, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action, Gilbert v. Keane, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company as a nominal defendant, and certain of the Company’s officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims based on the allegations raised by the plaintiff in the Stichting Depositar APG class action, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and that the defendants made materially misleading statements and/or omitted material information in violation of the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks a declaration that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company, unspecified monetary damages with interest, restitution, a direction that the defendants take all necessary actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On March 11, 2019, a second purported shareholder derivative action, Aldridge v. Keane, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The allegations in the Aldridge complaint are substantially similar to those in the Gilbert complaint.