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, Inc. ("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 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint asserted claims under § 10 and § 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household International'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. 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.

A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favor of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict were raised in post-trial briefing.

In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class members, the court-appointed claims administrator to the district court reported that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was approximately $2.2 billion. Defendants filed legal challenges regarding the presumption of reliance as to the class and compliance with the claims form requirements, which the district court in September 2012 rejected for the most part. The district court directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address certain claim submission issues.

On October 4, 2013, the district court denied defendants' additional posttrial motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and granted plaintiffs' motions for a partial final judgment and awarded pre-judgment interest at the Prime Rate, compounded annually. Subsequently, on October 17, 2013, the district court entered a partial final judgment against the defendants in the amount of $2.5 billion. In addition to the partial judgment that has been entered, there also remain approximately $527 million, prior to imposition of pre-judgment interest, in claims that still are subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the district court. Defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal of the partial final judgment and a Supersedeas Bond in the approximate amount of the judgment in order to stay execution on the judgment pending appeal.

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 application of pre-judgment interest at the Prime Rate as ordered by the district court, may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant amount to an amount up to or exceeding $3.5 billion. Once a judgment is entered (such as the $2.5 billion partial final judgment entered on October 17, 2013), post-judgment interest accrues on the judgment at a rate equal to the weekly average of the 1-year constant maturity treasury yield as published by the Federal Reserve System. 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 an insurance policy (hazard or flood insurance) 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 from both federal and state agencies.

Beginning in October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and insurers, including our affiliates, HSBC Insurance (USA) Inc. and HSBC Mortgage Services 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 provide documentation and information to the NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena. Additionally, in March 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a Civil Investigative Demand to HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. seeking information about lender-placed insurance activities. We continue to be engaged with the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding this matter.

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: Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); West, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687); Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185); Hoover, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (N.D.N.Y. 13-CV-00149); Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D. Fla. 13-CV-21104) Ross F. Gilmour v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:13-cv-05896-ALC) and Blackburn v. HSBC Finance Corp., et al. (N.D. Ga. 13-CV-03714-ODE). These actions relate primarily to industry-wide practices, 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.

The various HSBC defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the Montanez, Lopez, Weller and Hoover matters. The Court denied the motion to dismiss in the Lopez matter and we await the court’s ruling on the other motions. In addition, in Montanez, plaintiffs filed a motion for multi-district litigation treatment to consolidate the action with Lopez, which was denied on July 25, 2013.

Mortgage Securitization Activity In the course of 2012 and 2013, 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. In addition, we have received the following lawsuits: (i) Deutsche Bank, as Trustee of MSAC 2007-HE6 v. Decision One and HSBC Finance Corp.; and (ii) Deutsche Bank, as Trustee of HASCO 2007-HE2 v. Decision One, HSBC Finance Corp. and HSBC Bank USA. These actions seek to have Decision One Mortgage Company LLC ("Decision One") and/or HSBC Finance Corporation repurchase mortgage loans originated by Decision One and securitized by third parties. In the aggregate, these actions seek repurchase of loans, or compensatory damages, totaling approximately $500 million. A previously reported matter, Seagull Point LLC, individually and on behalf of the MSAC 2007-HE5 Trust v. Decision One Mortgage Company LLC, et al., was dismissed voluntarily in January 2014. In addition, HSBC Finance Corporation was dismissed, on motion, as a defendant in the Deutsche Bank, as Trustee of MSAC 2007-HE6 v. Decision One and HSBC Finance Corp. matter, but the case remains pending against Decision One. The range of reasonably possible losses in excess of our recorded repurchase liability is between zero and $62 million at December 31, 2013 related to claims that have been filed. Furthermore, real estate secured receivables sold during 2007 for which additional claims could be filed totaled approximately $5.5 billion. We believe that we would have strong defenses against any additional claims brought against us.

We expect these types of claims may continue. 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.

Litigation - Discontinued Operations

Credit Card Litigation Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard Incorporated ("Mastercard"), 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. 3:05-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 Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations were filed across the country against Visa, MasterCard and other banks and various individual actions were also brought by merchants against Visa and MasterCard. These class and individual merchant 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 were consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York as In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. (“MDL 1720”). On February 7, 2011, MasterCard, Visa, 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 district court granted final approval of the class settlement on December 13, 2013. Certain objecting merchants have filed notices of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 14, 2014, the district court entered the Class Settlement Order and final judgment dismissing the class action. We have deposited our portions of the class settlement and individual merchants’ settlements into escrow accounts pursuant to the terms of the Sharing Agreements.

Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement during the exclusion period. We anticipate that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages. To date, opt-out merchants have filed 27 opt-out suits in either state or federal court, including one, Speedy Stop Food Stores LLC v. Visa Inc. (Tex. Dist. Ct., Victoria City, No. 13-10-75377-A), that names certain HSBC entities as defendants. Pursuant to the MDL 1720 Sharing Agreements, certain HSBC entities are responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720.

Salveson v. JPMorgan Chase et al. (N.D.Cal. No. 13-CV-5816) was filed on December 16, 2013 against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America, HSBC Finance Corporation, and HSBC, as well as other banks. This putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts federal and California state antitrust claims on behalf of a putative class composed of all Visa and MasterCard cardholders in the United States. The substantive allegations regarding defendants’ conduct parallel the merchant claims in MDL 1720. Unlike the merchant suits, however, the Salveson complaint alleges that cardholders pay the interchange fee charged for credit card transaction, not merchants, and that card holders were therefore injured by the alleged anticompetitive conduct. In January 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the Salveson defendants’ request that the action be transferred to the district court for consolidation with the MDL 1720 proceedings.

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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the Esslinger matter. In November 2012, the district court entered a final approval order confirming the settlement and it became effective in May 2013. In the memorandum accompanying the final approval order, in response to objections brought by several Attorneys General, the district court noted that claims belonging solely to the states are not impacted by the settlement, but that claims brought by a state 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, which appeals were dismissed on motion or voluntarily. The district court entered the final distribution order in October 2013 for $24 million and payments were completed by October 31, 2013. Only Chastain remains as an individual action.

Beginning in August 2011, a number of state Attorneys General filed purported class actions against, among others, certain affiliates and/or subsidiaries asserting claims similar to those asserted in Esslinger. 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), in October 2011 alleging 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, as a defendant. In addition to damages, the Attorney General sought civil money penalties and injunctive relief. In November 2013, the HSBC defendants settled the litigation with the West Virginia Attorney General, resolving all claims for a payment just under $2 million.

In April 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii filed lawsuits against seven credit card issuers, including certain of our subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii, 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), alleging claims in connection with the marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services, including debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers in Hawaii. 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 denied. The Attorney General then withdrew its pending motion to consolidate the actions and appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which is still pending.

In June 2012, the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi filed complaints against six credit card issuers, including our subsidiaries HSBC Bank Nevada and HSBC Card Services Inc. and our affiliate HSBC Bank USA. 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 in connection with the marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services, including debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers in Mississippi. The relief sought includes an 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, which was denied by the federal court. The Attorney General sought interlocutory review of certain issues regarding the denial of remand. The Court of Appeals overruled the federal district court’s decision regarding remand, but the case remains pending in the federal district court where one remaining issue related to the propriety of federal jurisdiction is being litigated.

In April 2013, the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico also filed suit against nine credit card issuers, including our subsidiaries HSBC Bank Nevada and HSBC Card Services Inc. and our affiliate HSBC Bank USA. In the action, captioned State of New Mexico ex rel Gary King, Attorney General, v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the Attorney General alleges claims in connection with debt cancellation and suspension and other ancillary products marketed, administered and sold in connection with credit cards. The Attorney General seeks an injunction, restitution and civil money penalties, among other relief. The action was removed to Federal court in June 2013. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 7, 2013. The district court dismissed the Attorney General’s claim for restitution, but has not yet ruled on the remaining claims.

DeKalb County, et al. v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. 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. On October 23, 2013, following the court’s denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, defendants filed an answer. This action is at an early stage.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation Between May 2012 and January 2013, two substantially similar putative class actions were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against us or one or more of our subsidiaries. These two actions have been consolidated into a single action entitled: 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.). A number of individual actions also have 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), although similar cases filed against other financial institutions have been resolved for amounts significantly less than these maximum statutory damage amounts due to, among other things, the availability of various defenses to the claims. The parties currently are engaged in discovery in Mills. The other actions are in various stages of proceedings.

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 implement 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 (together the "IFR Settlement Agreements"), pursuant to which the Independent Foreclosure Review ceased and has been replaced by a broader framework under which we and twelve other participating servicers are, in the aggregate, providing in excess of $9.3 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help eligible borrowers. Pursuant to the IFR Settlement Agreements, HSBC North America made a cash payment of $96 million into a fund used to make payments to borrowers that were in active foreclosure during 2009 and 2010 and is providing 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. As of December 31, 2013, Rust Consulting, Inc., the paying agent, has issued almost all checks to eligible borrowers. 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 the IFR Settlement Agreements will satisfy the Independent Foreclosure Review requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders, including the wind down of the Independent Foreclosure Review. While we believe compliance related costs have permanently increased to higher levels due to the remediation requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders, the IFR Settlement Agreements 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 IFR Settlement 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 Servicing Consent Orders, provided the terms of the IFR Settlement 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 IFR Settlement Agreement does not preclude future 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. Following the February 2012 settlement, these government agencies initiated discussions with other mortgage industry servicers, including us. HSBC Finance Corporation, together with our affiliate 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 2011 (which was reduced by $14 million in 2013) reflecting the portion of the HSBC North America accrual 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, these practices have in the past resulted in private litigation and such a settlement would not preclude further private litigation concerning foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices