Litigation and Regulatory Matters

In addition to the matters described below, in the ordinary course of business, we are routinely named as defendants in, or as parties to, various legal actions and proceedings relating to activities of our current and/or former operations. These legal actions and proceedings may include claims for substantial or indeterminate compensatory or punitive damages, or for injunctive relief. In the ordinary course of business, we also are subject to governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal), certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by these regulators, we receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with various aspects of our regulated activities.

In view of the inherent unpredictability of litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings or investigations are in the early stages, we cannot determine with any degree of certainty the timing or ultimate resolution of litigation and regulatory matters or the eventual loss, fines, penalties or business impact, if any, that may result. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving litigation and regulatory matters, however, may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved for those matters.

Given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Litigation - Continuing Operations

Securities Litigation As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893), filed August 19, 2002. The complaint asserted claims under § 10 and § 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002. The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favor of the plaintiffs. Following post-trial briefing, the District Court ruled that various legal challenges to the verdict, including as to loss causation and other matters, would not be considered until after a second phase of the proceedings addressing issues of reliance and the submission of claims by class members had been completed. The District Court ruled in November 2010 that claim forms should be mailed to class members, and to ascertain which class members may have claims for damages arising from reliance on the misleading statements found by the jury. The District Court also set out a method for calculating damages for class members who filed claims. As previously reported, lead plaintiffs, in court filings in March 2010, estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between $2.4 billion to $3.2 billion to class members', before pre-judgment interest.

In December 2011, the report of the Court-appointed claims administrator to the District Court stated that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was approximately $2.23 billion. Defendants filed legal challenges asserting that the presumption of reliance was defeated as to the class and raising various objections with respect to compliance with the claims form requirements as to certain claims.

In September 2012, the District Court rejected defendants' arguments that the presumption of reliance generally had been defeated either as to the class or as to particular institutional claimants. In addition, the District Court has made various rulings with respect to the validity of specific categories of claims, and held certain categories of claims valid, certain categories of claims invalid, and directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address objections regarding certain other claim submission issues. In light of those rulings and through various agreements of the parties, currently there is approximately $1.37 billion in claims as to which there remain no unresolved objections relating to the claims form submissions. In addition, approximately $800 million in claims remain to be addressed before the Special Master with respect to various claims form objections, with a small portion of those potentially subject to further trial proceedings. Therefore, based upon proceedings to date, the current range of a possible final judgment, prior to imposition of prejudgment interest (if any), is between approximately $1.37 billion and $2.17 billion. With the imposition of prejudgment interest calculated through December 31, 2012, the high-end of a possible final judgment is approximately $2.7 billion. The District Court may wait for a resolution of all disputes as to all claims before entering final judgment, or the District Court may enter a partial judgment on fewer than all claims pending resolution of disputes as to the remaining claims. Post-verdict legal challenges remain to be addressed by the District Court.

The timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain. When a final judgment, partial or otherwise, is entered by the District Court, the parties have 30 days in which to appeal the verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite the just verdict and the various rulings of the District Court, we continue to believe that we have meritorious grounds for appeal of one or more of the rulings in the case and intend to appeal the District Court's final judgment, partial or otherwise.

Upon final judgment, partial or otherwise, we will be required to provide security for the judgment in order to suspend execution of the judgment while the appeal is ongoing by either depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account or posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including any pre-judgment interest awarded). Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages, including the outcome of any appeals, there is a wide range of possible damages. We believe we have meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both liability and damages, and will argue on appeal that damages should be zero or a relatively insignificant amount. If the Appeals Court rejects or only partially accepts our arguments, the amount of damages, based upon the claims submitted and the potential application of pre-judgment interest, may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant amount to somewhere in the region of $2.7 billion (or higher should plaintiffs' successfully cross-appeal certain issues related to the validity of specific claims) and, therefore, it is reasonably possible that future expenses related to this matter could be up to or exceed $2.7 billion. We continue to maintain a reserve for this matter in an amount that represents management's current estimate of probable losses.

Lender-Placed Insurance Matters Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard insurance policy on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails to maintain their own policy. The cost of the lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower. Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in 2012. In October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and insurers, including our affiliate, HSBC Insurance (USA) Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial Services (the “NYDFS”) with respect to lender-placed insurance activities dating back to September 2005. We have and will continue to provide documentation and information to the NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.

Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against one or more of our subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); and Still et al. v. Beneficial Financial I Inc. et al. (Cal. Super. Ct. Case No. KC062390). These actions relate primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, and include allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the insurance, the value and cost of the insurance that is placed, back-dating policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse, self-dealing and insufficient disclosure.

A recent routine state examination of our mortgage servicing practices concluded that borrowers were overcharged for lender-placed hazard insurance coverage based on the terms of the underlying mortgages during the period from July 2008 through April 2012, and required us to refund excess premiums charged to impacted borrowers in that state. In the first quarter of 2012, we recorded an accrual reflecting our estimate of premiums that will be refunded to the impacted borrowers as well as borrowers in other states who may have similar contractual claims. In December 2012, we entered into an agreement with the NYDFS to refund premiums to borrowers in the State of New York who may have contractual claims and, in January 2013, we initiated a refund program to borrowers who may have similar contractual claims.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation Between May 2012 and January 2013, five substantially similar putative class actions were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against us or one or more of our subsidiaries: Davis, Jr. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Case No. 11-bk-04423-RNO; 5:12-ap-0019 (Bankr. M.D. Pa.); Lehner v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 12-cv-01118-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fl.); Mills & Wilkes v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc., HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. HSBC Auto Finance, Inc. & HSBC Consumer Lending (USA), Inc., Case No.: 12-cv-04010-MEJ (N.D. Cal.); McDonald v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 37-2012-00058369-CU-MC-NC; and Comstock v. HSBC Bank U.S.A, N.A., Case No. 12-cv-0001-CAB-JMA (S.D. Cal.). A number of individual actions have also been filed. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the HSBC defendants contacted them, or the members of the class they seek to represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations). The parties are currently engaged in discovery and we are investigating the allegations.

Litigation - Discontinued Operations

Card Services Litigation Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D. Conn. No. 05-CV-01007 (WWE)): National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. (“MDL 1720”). A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the “Sharing Agreements”) that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation and our affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The Sharing Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District Court. In July 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc. and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the class litigations consolidated into MDL 1720. The putative class plaintiffs filed a class settlement agreement with the District Court on October 19, 2012, and the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving the class settlement on November 27, 2012. The class settlement is subject to final approval by the District Court. Pursuant to the class settlement agreement and the Sharing Agreements, we have deposited our portion of the class settlement amount into an escrow account for payment in the event the class settlement is approved. On October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs became effective. Pursuant to the Sharing Agreements, we have deposited our portion of the settlement amount into an escrow account which had no impact to net income (loss) as we increased our litigation reserves to an amount equal to our estimated portion of the settlement of this matter in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Debt Cancellation Litigation Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar putative class actions were filed against our subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (“HSBC Bank Nevada”) and HSBC Card Services Inc.: Rizera et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al. (D.N.J. No. 10-CV-03375); Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 10-CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (W.D. Wash. No. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (D. Md. No. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (N.D. III. No. 11-CV-00548); McKinney v. HSBC Card Services et al. (S.D. III. No. 10-CV-00786); Chastain v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 13^th Circuit) (filed as a counterclaim to a pending collections action); Colton et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (C.D. Ca. No. 11-CV-03742). These actions principally allege that cardholders were enrolled in debt cancellation or suspension products and challenge various marketing or administrative practices relating to those products. The plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection and deceptive acts and practices statutes. The Mitchell action was withdrawn by the plaintiff in March 2011. In July 2011, the parties in Rizera, Esslinger, McAlister, Samuels, McKinney and Colton executed a memorandum of settlement and subsequently submitted the formal settlement on a consolidated basis for approval by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the Esslinger matter. In February 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The plaintiff in Chastain appealed the District Court's preliminary approval order. The appellate court has not yet ruled on that appeal.

On October 1, 2012, the District Court held a hearing for final approval of the settlement in the Esslinger matter. Several objectors to the settlement appeared at the hearing, including representatives for the Attorneys General in West Virginia, Hawaii and Mississippi, where they asserted that claims brought in those Attorneys General's lawsuits (discussed below) should not be covered by the release in the Esslinger matter. In November 2012, the District Court entered a final approval order confirming the settlement. In its accompanying memorandum, the District Court noted that claims belonging solely to the states are not impacted by the settlement, but that claims brought by the Attorneys General seeking recovery for class members are precluded by the Esslinger settlement. Chastain and two other class members filed notices of appeal of the final approval order. The appeal is pending.

In October 2011, the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia filed a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Mason County, West Virginia, captioned State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (No. 11-C-93-N), alleging similar claims in connection with the marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services, including debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers in West Virginia. In September 2012, the Attorney General filed an amended complaint adding our affiliate, HSBC Bank USA, N.A, as a defendant. In addition to damages, the Attorney General is seeking civil money penalties and injunctive relief. The action was initially removed to Federal court. The Attorney General's motion to remand to State court was granted and we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in March 2012. The motion to dismiss was denied and discovery in ongoing. In late 2011, we received an information request regarding the same products from another state's Attorney General, although no action has yet been filed in that state.

In April 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii filed lawsuits against seven major credit card companies, including certain of our subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii, alleging that credit card customers were improperly and deceptively enrolled in various ancillary services, including payment protection plans and without regard to potential eligibility for benefits. In an action captioned State of Hawaii ex rel David Louie, Attorney General v. HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc., et al. (No. 12-1-0983-04), the Attorney General alleges claims for unfair and deceptive marketing practices, consumer fraud against elders and unjust enrichment. The relief sought includes an injunction against deceptive and unfair practices, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and civil monetary penalties. The action was removed to Federal court in May 2012. In June 2012, the Attorney General filed a motion to remand, which was subsequently denied. The Attorney General then withdrew it pending motion to consolidate the actions and filed a motion to certify the denial of its remand motion for interlocutory appeal. That motion is still pending.

In June 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi filed complaints against six credit card companies, including our subsidiaries HSBC Bank Nevada and HSBC Card Services Inc. and our affiliate HSBC Bank USA, N.A. In an action captioned Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex. rel. The State of Mississippi v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the Attorney General alleges claims that are substantially the same as those made in the West Virginia and Hawaii Attorney General actions consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims in connection with the defendants' marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services, including payment protection plans. The relief sought includes injunction against deceptive and unfair practices, disgorgement of profits, and civil money penalties. In August 2012, this action was removed to Federal court and the Attorney General filed a motion to remand. Briefing on the Attorney General's motion to remand has been consolidated for purposes and the motion remains pending.

Governmental and Regulatory Matters

Foreclosure Practices In April 2011, HSBC Finance Corporation and our indirect parent, HSBC North America, entered into a consent cease and desist order with the Federal Reserve Board (the “Federal Reserve”) (the “Federal Reserve Servicing Consent Order”), and our affiliate, HSBC Bank USA, entered into a similar consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) (together with the Federal Reserve Servicing Consent Order, the “Servicing Consent Orders”) following completion of a broad horizontal review of industry foreclosure practices. The Federal Reserve Servicing Consent Order requires us to take prescribed actions to address the deficiencies noted in the joint examination and described in the consent order. We continue to work with the Federal Reserve and the OCC to align our processes with the requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders and are implementing operational changes as required.

The Servicing Consent Orders required an independent review of foreclosures (“the Independent Foreclosure Review”) pending or completed between January 2009 and December 2010 to determine if any borrower was financially injured as a result of an error in the foreclosure process. As required by the Servicing Consent Orders, an independent consultant was retained to conduct that review. On February 28, 2013, HSBC Finance Corporation and our indirect parent, HSBC North America, entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve, and our affiliate, HSBC Bank USA, entered into an agreement with the OCC, pursuant to which the Independent Foreclosure Review will cease and HSBC North America will make a cash payment of $96 million into a fund that will be used to make payments to borrowers that were in active foreclosure during 2009 and 2010 and, in addition, will provide other assistance (e.g., loan modifications) to help eligible borrowers. As a result, in 2012, we recorded expenses of $85 million which reflects the portion of HSBC North America's total expense of $104 million that we believe is allocable to us. These actions form HSBC North America's portion of larger agreements announced by the Federal Reserve and the OCC in January 2013 involving HSBC and twelve other mortgage servicers subject to foreclosure consent orders, pursuant to which the mortgage servicers would pay, in the aggregate, in excess of $9.3 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help eligible borrowers. Pursuant to these agreements, the Independent Foreclosure Reviews will cease and be replaced by a broader framework under which all eligible borrowers will receive compensation regardless of whether they filed a request for independent review of their foreclosure and regardless of whether the borrower was financially injured as a result of an error in the foreclosure process. Borrowers who receive compensation will not be required to execute a release or waiver of rights and will not be precluded from pursuing litigation concerning foreclosure or other mortgage servicing practices. For participating servicers, including HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Bank USA, fulfillment of the terms of these agreements will satisfy the Independent Foreclosure Review requirements of the Consent Orders. While we believe compliance related costs have permanently increased to higher levels due to the remediation requirements of the regulatory consent agreements, this settlement will positively impact compliance expenses in future periods as the significant resources working on the Independent Foreclosure Review will no longer be required.

The Servicing Consent Orders do not preclude additional enforcement actions against HSBC Finance Corporation or our affiliates by bank regulatory, governmental or law enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or State Attorneys General, which could include the imposition of civil money penalties and other sanctions relating to the activities that are the subject of the Servicing Consent Orders. Pursuant to the agreement with the OCC, however, the OCC has agreed that it will not assess civil money penalties or initiate any further enforcement action with respect to past mortgage servicing and foreclosure-related practices addressed in the consent orders, provided the terms of the agreement are fulfilled. The OCC's agreement not to assess civil money penalties is further conditioned on HSBC North America making payments or providing borrower assistance pursuant to any agreement that may be entered into with the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans within two years. The Federal Reserve has agreed that any assessment of civil money penalties by the Federal Reserve will reflect a number of adjustments, including amounts expended in consumer relief and payments made pursuant to any agreement that may be entered into with the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans. In addition, the agreement does not preclude private litigation concerning these practices.

Separate from the Servicing Consent Orders and the settlement related to the Independent Foreclosure Review discussed above, in February 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and State Attorneys General of 49 states announced a settlement with the five largest U.S. mortgage servicers with respect to foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices. HSBC North America, HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Bank USA have had discussions with U.S. bank regulators and other governmental agencies regarding a potential resolution, although the timing of any settlement is not presently known. We recorded an accrual of $157 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, which reflects the portion of the HSBC North America accrual that we currently believe is allocable to HSBC Finance Corporation. As this matter progresses and more information becomes available, we will continue to evaluate our portion of the HSBC North America liability which may result in a change to our current estimate. Any such settlement, however, may not completely preclude other enforcement actions by state or federal agencies, regulators or law enforcement agencies related to foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices, including, but not limited to, matters relating to the securitization of mortgages for investors. In addition, such a settlement would not preclude private litigation concerning these practices.

In October 2012, three of the five counties constituting the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Housing Act against HSBC North America and numerous subsidiaries, including HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Bank USA, in connection with residential mortgage lending, servicing and financing activities. In the action, captioned DeKalb County, Fulton County, and Cobb County, Georgia v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga. No. 12-CV-03640), the plaintiff counties assert that the defendants' allegedly discriminatory lending and servicing practices led to increased loan delinquencies, foreclosures and vacancies, which in turn caused the plaintiff counties to incur damages in the form of lost property tax revenues and increased municipal services costs, among other damages. Defendants' motion to dismiss the case was filed in January 2013.

Mortgage Securitization Activity In the course of 2012, we have received notice of several claims from investors and from trustees of residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) related to our activities as a sponsor and the activities of our subsidiaries as originators in connection with RMBS transactions closed between 2005 and 2007. We are currently evaluating these claims. On September 26, 2012, an action of this sort, captioned FHFA ex rel. Trustee of MSAC 2006-HE6 v. HSBC Finance Corp. and Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC (New York County Supreme Court, Index No. 653373/2012), was filed by the conservator of an investor in an RMBS trust, the assets of which include mortgage loans originated by our subsidiary, Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC. The action subsequently was withdrawn voluntarily. We expect these types of claims to continue and potentially intensify, so long as the U.S. real estate markets continue to be distressed. As a result, we may be subject to additional claims, litigation and governmental and regulatory scrutiny related to our participation as a sponsor or originator in the U.S. mortgage securitization market.