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 legal matters, including litigation, governmental 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 such matters or the eventual loss, fines, penalties or business impact, if any, that may result. We establish reserves for litigation, governmental and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. Once established, reserves are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The actual costs of resolving litigation and regulatory matters, however, may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved for those matters. In 2015, legal expenses were impacted by an increase of $760 million between years related to certain legal matters, including mortgage servicing.

For the legal matters disclosed below, including litigation, governmental and regulatory matters, as to which a loss in excess of accrued liability is reasonably possible in future periods and for which there is sufficient currently available information on the basis of which we believe we can make a reliable estimate, we believe a reasonable estimate could be as much as $3.1 billion for HSBC Finance Corporation. The legal matters underlying this estimate of possible loss will change from time to time and actual results may differ significantly from this current estimate.

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 any particular quarterly or annual period.

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. The district court directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address certain claim submission issues.

In October 2013, the district court entered a partial final judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately $2.5 billion. In addition to the partial judgment that has been entered, there also remain approximately $625 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.

In May 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the partial final judgment of the district court of October 2013 and remanding the case for a new trial as to Household International Inc. on loss causation, which ultimately will entail a reassessment of the quantum of damages if loss causation is established. On remand to the district court, the case was reassigned to Judge Jorge Alonso. Judge Alonso has issued various rulings on certain preliminary issues and has entered a scheduling order which includes a trial date of June 6, 2016. Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with a re-trial of loss causation and damages, there continues to be a wide range of possible outcomes. 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. We have received and may continue to receive regulatory inquiries.

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 provided 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. In January 2014, HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) and various other HSBC entities engaged in mortgage related servicing agreed to a settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General concerning allegations of conflict of interest in placement of lender placed insurance, including the cost of and revenues allegedly derived from placement of the insurance. The HSBC entities paid $4.075 million to Massachusetts to be held in escrow until the settlement was finalized. On February 17, 2016, the settlement was finalized by the filing of an Assurance of Discontinuance in the Massachusetts Superior Court.

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.

All of the above matters have been settled and the court has granted final approval of such settlements, with the exception of West, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687), in which the parties reached a settlement in principle in January 2016. The settlements were all within our reserves for these matters, and administration for the class settlements is nearly complete.

Mortgage Securitization Activity

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 in lieu of repurchase, totaling approximately $500 million. Decision One's motion for summary judgment in the Deutsche Bank, as Trustee of MSAC 2007-HE6 v. Decision One and HSBC Finance Corp. was denied. The trial originally scheduled to begin on February 29, 2016, has been adjourned indefinitely.

Since 2010, various HSBC entities have received certain subpoenas and requests for information from U.S. authorities seeking production of documents and information relating to HSBC’s involvement, and the involvement of its affiliates, in specified private-label RMBS transactions as an issuer, sponsor, underwriter, depositor, trustee, custodian or servicer. HSBC continues to cooperate with these authorities. In November 2014, HSBC North America, on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries, including, but not limited to, HSBC Bank USA, HSI Asset Securitization Corp., HSI, HSI Asset Loan Obligation, HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), HSBC Finance Corporation and Decision One Mortgage Company LLC, received a subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Colorado, pursuant to the Financial Industry Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a (“FIRREA”), concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitization and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages. Five U.S. banks have reported settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice of FIRREA and other mortgage-backed securities related matters. We are cooperating fully with US authorities and are continuing to produce documents and information responsive to their requests.

In December 2013, Residential Funding Company, LLC (“RFC”) filed an action against Decision One in Minnesota state court relating to alleged losses RFC suffered as a result of its purchase of approximately 16,000 mortgage loans from Decision One from 2000 to 2007. The action subsequently was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. RFC alleges claims for breach of contract for alleged breach of representations and warranties concerning the quality and characteristics of the mortgage loans and contractual indemnification for alleged losses incurred by RFC arising out of purported defects in loans that RFC purchased from Decision One and subsequently sold to third parties via whole loans or securitizations.

In February 2016 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed an adversary proceeding in the context of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against nearly 150 entities, including HSBC Mortgage Services, relating to losses LBHI purportedly suffered as a result of its purchase of mortgage loans originated and/or sold by the defendants to LBHI. LBHI sold the loans to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under agreements that contained representations and warranties concerning the quality and characteristics of the loans. LBHI subsequently settled claims made against it by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for losses on the loans, and now LBHI seeks indemnification for those settlements. This action is at an early stage.

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. The range of reasonably possible losses in excess of our accrued liability for all of our mortgage securitization activities has been included in the reasonably possible losses discussed above.

Benchmark Rate Litigation HSBC Finance Corporation is one of several defendants in a lawsuit filed by 2 mutual funds managed by Prudential Investment Portfolios seeking unspecified damages arising from the alleged artificial suppression of U.S. dollar Libor rates. The other defendants are members of the U.S. dollar Libor panel of banks and their affiliates. This action is part of the U.S. dollar Libor Multi-District Litigation proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation). HSBC and HSBC Bank plc are defendants in that proceeding as well. The stay previously imposed by the court on the individual actions was lifted in 2014. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2014, and a hearing on the motion was held in February 2015.

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"), had been named as defendants in a number of consolidated merchant class actions and individual merchant actions had been filed against Visa and MasterCard, alleging 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. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. (“MDL 1720”). In 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 in December 2013 and entered the Class Settlement Order and final judgment dismissing the class action shortly thereafter. Certain objecting merchants appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and that appeal is pending. Separately, in July 2015, various objectors filed a motion in the district court contending that the approval order should be set aside because of alleged improper communications between one of plaintiff's outside counsel and one of MasterCard's former outside counsel.

Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement during the exclusion period. Various opt-out merchants have filed opt-out suits in either state or federal court, most of which have been transferred to the consolidated multi-district litigation, MDL1720. To date, certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the defendants in those actions and certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the MDL 1720 Sharing Agreements, 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 March and May 2014, defendants, including the HSBC defendants, filed a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York for consolidation with MDL 1720. On November 26, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the dismissal decision in December 2014. The motion is fully briefed and we await a decision from the court. In January 2015, plaintiffs also appealed the district court’s dismissal of the action.

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. The HSBC defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in July 2014. In March 2015, the court denied the motion, and the HSBC defendants filed a motion seeking, among other things, reconsideration of certain parts of the court’s ruling. In November 2015, the HSBC defendants’ motion for reconsideration was granted in part, and the court reversed certain aspects of its March 2015 decision. Discovery is proceeding in accordance with the court’s rulings.

County of Cook v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. On March 21, 2014, Cook County, Illinois (the county in which the city of Chicago is located) filed an action pursuant to the Fair Housing Act against HSBC North America and certain subsidiaries that is substantially similar to the lawsuit filed by the counties of DeKalb, Fulton and Cobb in Georgia. In this action, as in DeKalb County, et al. v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al., the plaintiff asserts that the defendants' allegedly discriminatory lending and servicing practices led to increased loan delinquencies, foreclosures and vacancies, which in turn caused the plaintiff to incur damages in the form of lost property tax revenues and increased municipal services costs, among other damages. An amended complaint was filed in March 2014. The HSBC defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2015, the court denied the motion. The defendants moved to certify the case for interlocutory appeal, which motion was denied in January 2016.

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.). 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. By agreement of the parties, the action in the Northern District of California was dismissed and a consolidated action entitled Wilkins & Mills v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. & HSBC Card Services, Inc., was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The parties settled the action for approximately $40 million, and the court issued a final order approving the settlement and dismissing the action in March 2015. Settlement administration is nearly completed.

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 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. In February 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 was 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 agreed to 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. As of December 31, 2015, Rust Consulting, Inc., the paying agent, has issued virtually 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.

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. In addition, the IFR Settlement Agreements do 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 national mortgage 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. We recorded an accrual of $157 million in 2011 (which was reduced by $14 million in 2013 and further reduced by $60 million during the second quarter of 2014), reflecting the portion of the HSBC North America accrual we believed to be allocable to HSBC Finance Corporation. In February 2016, we, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. and HSBC North America entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, other federal agencies (“Federal Parties”) and the Attorneys General of 49 states and the District of Columbia (“State Parties”) to resolve civil claims related to past residential mortgage loan origination and servicing practices. The settlement is similar to prior national mortgage settlements reached with other US mortgage servicers and includes the following terms: $100 million cash payment to be allocated among participating Federal and State Parties, and $370 million in consumer relief provided through our receivable modification programs. All except $32 million of the settlement is allocable to us and was within the amount reserved for the matter. In addition, the settlement agreement sets forth national mortgage servicing standards to which we and our U.S. affiliates will adhere.

The national mortgage settlement, may not, however, 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, including the imposition of civil money penalties, criminal fines or other sanctions. 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.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve announced the imposition against HSBC North America and us of a $131 million civil money penalty in conjunction with that agency’s April 2011 Servicing Consent Order. Pursuant to the terms of the civil money penalty assessment order, the penalty will be satisfied through the cash payments made to the Federal Parties and the consumer relief provided pursuant to the national mortgage settlement.