Note 15

Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

Visa Restructuring and Card Association Litigation The Company’s payment services business issues credit and debit cards and acquires credit and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card association or its affiliates (collectively “Visa”). In 2007, Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc. common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation of its initial public offering (“IPO”) completed in the first quarter of 2008 (the “Visa Reorganization”). As a part of the Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. (“Class B shares”). Visa U.S.A. Inc. (“Visa U.S.A.”) and MasterCard International (collectively, the “Card Associations”) are defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the “Visa Litigation”). Visa U.S.A. member banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation. The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation contingent liability. On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This case is the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters. The district court approved the settlement, but that approval was appealed by certain class members. On June 30, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the approval of the settlement and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling. On November 23, 2016, certain class members filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court asking it to review the Second Circuit’s decision to reject the settlement. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the class members’ petition. The case is proceeding in the district court.

At June 30, 2018, the carrying amount of the Company’s liability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was $19 million. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company sold 0.2 million and 0.5 million, respectively, of its Class B shares. These sales, and any previous sales of its Class B shares, do not impact the Company’s liability for the Visa Litigation matters or the receivable related to the escrow account. Upon final settlement of the Visa Litigation, the remaining 2.2 million Class B shares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion to Class A shares of Visa Inc., which are publicly traded. The Class B shares are excluded from the Company’s financial instruments disclosures included in Note 14.

Other Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

The following table is a summary of other guarantees and contingent liabilities of the Company at June 30, 2018:


(Dollars in Millions)	Collateral Held		Carrying Amount		Maximum Potential Future Payments
Standby letters of credit	$	–	$	52	$	11,057
Third party borrowing arrangements		–		–		11
Securities lending indemnifications		3,908		–		3,820
Asset sales		–		119		6,818	(a)
Merchant processing		746		68		107,444
Tender option bond program guarantee		2,420		–		2,334
Minimum revenue guarantees		–		–		6
Other		–		22		1,409

(a)

The maximum potential future payments do not include loan sales where the Company provides standard representation and warranties to the buyer against losses related to loan underwriting documentation defects that may have existed at the time of sale that generally are identified after the occurrence of a triggering event such as delinquency. For these types of loan sales, the maximum potential future payments is generally the unpaid principal balance of loans sold measured at the end of the current reporting period. Actual losses will be significantly less than the maximum exposure, as only a fraction of loans sold will have a representation and warranty breach, and any losses on repurchase would generally be mitigated by any collateral held against the loans.

Merchant Processing The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides merchant processing services. Under the rules of credit card associations, a merchant processor retains a contingent liability for credit card transactions processed. This contingent liability arises in the event of a billing dispute between the merchant and a cardholder that is ultimately resolved in the cardholder’s favor. In this situation, the transaction is “charged-back” to the merchant and the disputed amount is credited or otherwise refunded to the cardholder. If the Company is unable to collect this amount from the merchant, it bears the loss for the amount of the refund paid to the cardholder.

The Company currently processes card transactions in the United States, Canada, Europe and Mexico through wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures with other financial institutions. In the event a merchant was unable to fulfill product or services subject to future delivery, such as airline tickets, the Company could become financially liable for refunding the purchase price of such products or services purchased through the credit card associations under the charge-back provisions. Charge-back risk related to these merchants is evaluated in a manner similar to credit risk assessments and, as such, merchant processing contracts contain various provisions to protect the Company in the event of default. At June 30, 2018, the value of airline tickets purchased to be delivered at a future date through card transactions processed by the Company was $10.7 billion. The Company held collateral of $615 million in escrow deposits, letters of credit and indemnities from financial institutions, and liens on various assets. In addition to specific collateral or other credit enhancements, the Company maintains a liability for its implied guarantees associated with future delivery. At June 30, 2018, the liability was $56 million primarily related to these airline processing arrangements.

Asset Sales The Company regularly sells loans to GSEs as part of its mortgage banking activities. The Company provides customary representations and warranties to GSEs in conjunction with these sales. These representations and warranties generally require the Company to repurchase assets if it is subsequently determined that a loan did not meet specified criteria, such as a documentation deficiency or rescission of mortgage insurance. If the Company is unable to cure or refute a repurchase request, the Company is generally obligated to repurchase the loan or otherwise reimburse the counterparty for losses. At June 30, 2018, the Company had reserved $11 million for potential losses from representation and warranty obligations, compared with $13 million at December 31, 2017. The Company’s reserve reflects management’s best estimate of losses for representation and warranty obligations. The Company’s repurchase reserve is modeled at the loan level, taking into consideration the individual credit quality and borrower activity that has transpired since origination. The model applies credit quality and economic risk factors to derive a probability of default and potential repurchase that are based on the Company’s historical loss experience, and estimates loss severity based on expected collateral value. The Company also considers qualitative factors that may result in anticipated losses differing from historical loss trends.

As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company had $15 million and $9 million, respectively, of unresolved representation and warranty claims from GSEs. The Company does not have a significant amount of unresolved claims from investors other than GSEs.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

The Company is subject to various litigation and regulatory matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The Company establishes reserves for such matters when potential losses become probable and can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes the ultimate resolution of existing legal and regulatory matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. However, in light of the uncertainties inherent in these matters, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of one or more of these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for a particular period, and future changes in circumstances or additional information could result in additional accruals or resolution in excess of established accruals, which could adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, potentially materially.

Litigation Matters In the last several years, the Company and other large financial institutions have been sued in their capacity as trustee for residential mortgage–backed securities trusts. Among these lawsuits is an action originally brought in June 2014 by a group of institutional investors, including BlackRock and PIMCO funds, against six bank trustees, including the Company. The action brought by these institutional investors against the Company is currently pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. In this lawsuit, the investors allege that the Company’s banking subsidiary, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), as trustee caused them to incur substantial losses by failing to enforce loan repurchase obligations and failing to abide by appropriate standards of care after events of default allegedly occurred. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and also seek equitable relief.

Regulatory Matters The Company is continually subject to examinations, inquiries and investigations in areas of heightened regulatory scrutiny, such as compliance, risk management, third party risk management and consumer protection. For example, the Company is currently subject to examinations, inquiries and investigations by government agencies and bank regulators concerning mortgage-related practices, including those related to lender-placed insurance, and notices and filings in bankruptcy cases. The Company is cooperating fully with all pending examinations, inquiries and investigations, any of which could lead to administrative or legal proceedings or settlements. Remedies in these proceedings or settlements may include fines, penalties, restitution or alterations in the Company’s business practices (which may increase the Company’s operating expenses and decrease its revenue).

In October 2015, U.S. Bank entered into a Consent Order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency concerning deficiencies in its Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance program, and requiring an ongoing review of that program. The Consent Order remains open and U.S. Bank continues to implement the compliance program enhancements and other actions required by the order.

In February 2018, the Company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (the “DPA”) with the United States Attorney’s Office in Manhattan that resolved its investigation of the Company concerning a legacy banking relationship between U.S. Bank and payday lending businesses associated with a former customer and U.S. Bank’s legacy Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance program. The DPA defers prosecution for a period of two years, subject to the Company’s compliance with its terms, which include ongoing efforts to implement and maintain an adequate Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance program. If the Company violates the DPA, its term could be extended up to an additional one year, or the Company could be subject to a prosecution or civil action based on the matters that are the subject of the DPA. In addition, the Company and certain of its affiliates entered into related regulatory settlements with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. If the Company and its affiliates fail to satisfy ongoing obligations under these regulatory settlements, which include ongoing commitments to provide resources to, and enhance, the Company’s firm wide Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance program, the Company and its affiliates may be required to enter into further orders and settlements, pay additional fines or penalties, or modify their business practices (which may increase operating expenses and decrease revenue).

Outlook Due to their complex nature, it can be years before litigation and regulatory matters are resolved. The Company may be unable to develop an estimate or range of loss where matters are in early stages, there are significant factual or legal issues to be resolved, damages are unspecified or uncertain, or there is uncertainty as to a litigation class being certified or the outcome of pending motions, appeals or proceedings. For those litigation and regulatory matters where the Company has information to develop an estimate or range of loss, the Company believes the upper end of the range of reasonably possible losses in aggregate, in excess of any reserves established for matters where a loss is considered probable, will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s estimates are subject to significant judgment and uncertainties, and the matters underlying the estimates will change from time to time. Actual results may vary significantly from the current estimates.

For additional information on the nature of the Company’s guarantees and contingent liabilities, refer to Note 22 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.