Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Loan Portfolio: CSB provides a co-branded loan origination program for CSB clients (the Program) with Quicken Loans, Inc. (Quicken Loans^®). Pursuant to the Program, Quicken Loans originates and services First Mortgages and HELOCs for CSB clients. Under the Program, CSB purchases certain First Mortgages and HELOCs that are originated by Quicken Loans. CSB purchased First Mortgages of $2.7 billion and $702 million during the second quarters of 2020 and 2019, respectively, and $4.9 billion and $1.1 billion during the first six months of 2020 and 2019, respectively. CSB purchased HELOCs with commitments of $133 million and $66 million during the second quarters of 2020 and 2019, respectively, and $240 million and $128 million during the first six months of 2020 and 2019, respectively.

The Company’s commitments to extend credit on bank lines of credit and to purchase First Mortgages are as follows:



	June 30, 2020		December 31, 2019
Commitments to extend credit related to unused HELOCs, PALs, and other lines of credit	$	9,341	$	10,753
Commitments to purchase First Mortgage loans	1,992		1,521
Total	$	11,333	$	12,274

Guarantees and indemnifications: Schwab has clients that sell (i.e., write) listed option contracts that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation – a clearing house that establishes margin requirements on these transactions. We partially satisfy the margin requirements by arranging unsecured standby letter of credit agreements (LOCs), in favor of the Options Clearing Corporation, which are issued by several banks. At June 30, 2020, the aggregate face amount of these LOCs totaled $20 million. There were no funds drawn under any of these LOCs at June 30, 2020. In connection with its securities lending activities, Schwab is required to provide collateral to certain brokerage clients. The Company satisfies the collateral requirements by providing cash as collateral.

Schwab also provides guarantees to securities clearing houses and exchanges under standard membership agreements, which require members to guarantee the performance of other members. Under the agreements, if another member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to the clearing houses and exchanges, other members would be required to meet shortfalls. Schwab’s liability under these arrangements is not quantifiable and may exceed the cash and securities it has posted as collateral. At June 30, 2020, amounts posted as collateral with such clearing houses and exchanges included $242 million of U.S. Treasury securities, which are included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The potential requirement for the Company to make payments under these arrangements is remote. Accordingly, no liability has been recognized for these guarantees.

Acquisition of TD Ameritrade: On November 25, 2019, CSC announced a definitive agreement to acquire TD Ameritrade in an all-stock transaction. At the time of announcement, TD Ameritrade had approximately twelve million brokerage accounts and $1.3 trillion in total client assets. Under the agreement, TD Ameritrade stockholders will receive 1.0837 CSC shares for each TD Ameritrade share. Based on the closing price of CSC common stock on November 20, 2019, the merger consideration represented approximately $26 billion. The transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2020, subject to satisfaction of

closing conditions. During the second quarter of 2020 the Department of Justice completed its antitrust review of our proposed acquisition of TD Ameritrade, and both Schwab and TD Ameritrade stockholders voted to approve the acquisition.

Legal contingencies: Schwab is subject to claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, some of which include claims for substantial or unspecified damages. The Company is also the subject of inquiries, investigations, and proceedings by regulatory and other governmental agencies.

Predicting the outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter is inherently difficult, requiring significant judgment and evaluation of various factors, including the procedural status of the matter and any recent developments; prior experience and the experience of others in similar cases; available defenses, including potential opportunities to dispose of a case on the merits or procedural grounds before trial (e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary judgment); the progress of fact discovery; the opinions of counsel and experts regarding potential damages; and potential opportunities for settlement and the status of any settlement discussions. It may not be reasonably possible to estimate a range of potential liability until the matter is closer to resolution – pending, for example, further proceedings, the outcome of key motions or appeals, or discussions among the parties. Numerous issues may have to be developed, such as discovery of important factual matters and determination of threshold legal issues, which may include novel or unsettled questions of law. Reserves are established or adjusted or further disclosure and estimates of potential loss are provided as the matter progresses and more information becomes available.

Schwab believes it has strong defenses in all significant matters currently pending and is contesting liability and any damages claimed. Nevertheless, some of these matters may result in adverse judgments or awards, including penalties, injunctions or other relief, and the Company may also determine to settle a matter because of the uncertainty and risks of litigation. Described below are matters in which there is a reasonable possibility of a material loss, or where the matter may otherwise be of significant interest to stockholders. Unless noted, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of any potential liability given the stage of proceedings in the matter. With respect to all other pending matters, based on current information and consultation with counsel, it does not appear reasonably possible that the outcome of any such matter would be material to the financial condition, operating results, or cash flows of the Company.

Crago Order Routing Litigation: On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co’s duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and are vigorously contesting the lawsuit.

TD Ameritrade Acquisition Litigation: As disclosed previously, Schwab and TD Ameritrade have been responding to federal securities lawsuits and a Delaware fiduciary lawsuit relating to the proposed acquisition.

Eight lawsuits challenging the sufficiency of disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement (“Registration Statement”) concerning the acquisition were filed as follows: Kent v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., a putative class action filed March 18, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Schwab entities named); Stein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., filed March 23, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; Roth v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., filed March 30, 2020 in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Litwin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., filed April 2, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Bernstein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., a putative class action filed April 6, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (CSC named); Garrison v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., filed April 6, 2020 in U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York; Paine-Mantha v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., filed May 12, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; and Kong v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., filed May 15, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Although TD Ameritrade and Schwab disputed the allegations, to avoid any unnecessary delays and the expense and distraction of litigation, TD Ameritrade voluntarily provided supplemental disclosures to the Registration Statement. As a result, plaintiffs in all eight cases have voluntarily dismissed their claims.

On May 12, 2020, a lawsuit challenging the acquisition was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Hawkes v. Bettino et al.) on behalf of a proposed class of TD Ameritrade’s stockholders, excluding, among others, the Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank). The complaint names as defendants each member of the TD Ameritrade board of directors at the time the acquisition

was approved, as well as TD Bank and Schwab. As an initial matter, the lawsuit sought to enjoin voting on or consummation of the acquisition, specifically alleging that prior to the TD Ameritrade board’s approval of the acquisition, agreements were reached between Schwab and TD Bank on an amendment of the Insured Deposit Account Agreement and voting of TD Bank’s shares of TD Ameritrade common stock in favor of the acquisition; which agreements allegedly caused Schwab to become an “interested stockholder” of TD Ameritrade under Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law; and which would thereby require the affirmative vote of at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding TD Ameritrade common stock not allegedly owned by Schwab under Section 203. Subsequent to filing of the lawsuit and as previously disclosed, defendants reached an agreement with plaintiff under which plaintiff agreed to withdraw his Section 203 claim if the acquisition were to receive the 66 2/3% stockholder support allegedly required. With 76.9% of the applicable outstanding TD Ameritrade common stock (excluding stock not deemed to be owned by Schwab) having voted in favor of the acquisition at the TD Ameritrade special stockholders meeting on June 4, 2020, plaintiff has now agreed to dismiss his Section 203 claim as moot and has withdrawn his application for a preliminary injunction. Still pending are separate claims asserted in the complaint for breach of fiduciary duty by certain members of the TD Ameritrade board and TD Bank, and against Schwab for aiding and abetting such breaches, the allegation being that the amendment of the Insured Deposit Account Agreement TD Bank negotiated directly with Schwab allowed TD Bank to divert merger consideration from TD Ameritrade’s minority public stockholders. Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. Schwab and the other defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit and are contesting the remaining claims in the lawsuit.