Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 14 – CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on novel or unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. Because of these factors, the Company typically cannot provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. In no cases are those accrual amounts material to the financial condition of the Company. The actual costs of resolving these claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved. For a limited number of legal matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. For other matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, such an estimate is not possible. For those matters where a loss is both estimable and reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses as $0 to approximately $400 million in excess of the reserves, if any, related to those matters. This amount reflects an increase of $100 million since December 31, 2012, primarily related to mortgage-related matters. This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available at June 30, 2013. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range; therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Based on current knowledge, it is the opinion of management that liabilities arising from legal claims in excess of the amounts currently reserved, if any, will not have a material impact to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, in light of the significant uncertainties involved in these matters and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results or cash flows for any given reporting period. The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: Interchange and Related Litigation Card Association Antitrust Litigation The Company is a defendant, along with Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard International, as well as several other banks, in one of several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this litigation matter, refer to Note 12, “Reinsurance Arrangements and Guarantees.” In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation The Company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco, California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. C04-2676 CR13. In these actions, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee for participants in the Star ATM Network. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants’ conduct was illegal per se. In August 2007, Concord and the bank defendants filed motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ per se claim. In March 2008, the Court granted the motions on the ground that Defendants’ conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed under the rule of reason. The Court certified this question for interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal on August 13, 2008. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint in which they asserted a rule of reason claim. This complaint was dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were given leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed yet another complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same. The Court granted this motion in part by dismissing one of the Plaintiffs' two claims but denied the motion as to one claim. On September 16, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that claim. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing en banc; however, this motion was denied. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in July 2013. Overdraft Fee Cases The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts. The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009. This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of the method of posting order used by the Company, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a putative class of “all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment,” as well as “all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges.” Plaintiffs sought restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both motions were denied. The denial of the motion to compel arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. The District Court then denied SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration for different reasons. SunTrust appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be granted. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which was denied. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also was denied. This matter is now closed. The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion is pending. The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered as a result of the method of posting order used by SunTrust, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to his checking account, and purport to bring this action on behalf of a putative class of “all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment,” as well as “all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank’s reordering of charges.” Plaintiff seeks restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys’ fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The District Court granted SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration in July 2013. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. v. United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina STM filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia in July 2009 against United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina (“UGRIC”) seeking payment of denied mortgage insurance claims on second lien mortgages. STM's claims were in two counts. Count One involved a common reason for denial of claims by UGRIC for a group of loans. Count Two involved a group of loans with individualized reasons for the claim denials asserted by UGRIC. UGRIC counterclaimed for declaratory relief involving interpretation of the insurance policy involving certain caps on the amount of claims covered and whether STM was obligated to continue to pay premiums after any caps were met. The Court granted STM's motion for summary judgment as to liability on Count One and, after a trial on damages, awarded STM $34 million along with $6 million in prejudgment interest on August 19, 2011. The Court stayed Count Two pending final resolution of Count One. On September 13, 2011, the Court awarded an additional $5 million to the Count One judgment for fees on certain issues. On UGRIC's counterclaim, the Court agreed that UGRIC's interpretation was correct regarding STM's continued obligations to pay premiums in the future after coverage caps are met. However, on August 19, 2011, the Court found for STM on its affirmative defense that UGRIC can no longer enforce the contract due to its prior breaches and, consequently, denied UGRIC's request for a declaration that it was entitled to continue to collect premiums after caps are met. On February 1, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (i) upheld the judgment to STM of $45 million ($34 million in claims, $6 million in interest, and $5 million in additional fees); and (ii) vacated the ruling in STM's favor regarding the defense STM asserted to UGRIC's claim that STM owes continued premium after the caps are reached. On February 15, 2013, UGRIC filed a motion asking the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear its appeal. This request was denied on March 4, 2013. The case has returned to the District Court for further proceedings regarding STM's defense to UGRIC's claims for additional premiums. Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained pending following the class settlement. STRH has settled one such individual action and is in settlement discussions in another. The other individual lawsuits have been dismissed, subject to an appeal in one case and a potential appeal in another. SunTrust Shareholder Derivative Litigation On September 9, 2011, the Company and several current and former executives and members of the Board were named in a shareholder derivative action filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Sharon Benfield v. James M. Wells, III. et al., and on December 19, 2011, the Company and several current and former executives and members of the Board were named as defendants in a separate shareholder derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Edward Mannato v. James M. Wells, III, et al. The plaintiffs in both of these lawsuits purport to bring their claims on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company. Generally, these lawsuits are substantially overlapping and make very broad allegations of mismanagement of, and misrepresentations about, the Company's exposure to loan losses and the residential real estate market leading up to and during the recent real estate and credit market crises. In both cases, the plaintiffs assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Mannato lawsuit arises out of a shareholder demand made of SunTrust in March 2008 that was the subject of an investigation conducted at the direction of a committee of independent members of the Company's Board. This committee concluded that no wrongdoing had occurred and that the interests of the Company's shareholders would not be served by pursuing the claims alleged in the plaintiff's demand. A new committee conducted a new investigation of the allegations raised in the lawsuit and concluded that no wrongdoing had occurred and that the interests of the Company's shareholders would not be served by pursuing the claims alleged in the plaintiff's demand. The Benfield lawsuit arises out of a shareholder demand made of SunTrust in February 2011 that was the subject of an investigation conducted at the direction of the same Board committee, which concluded that these allegations had no merit. On October 29, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in the Benfield case. This decision is on appeal. The Court stayed the Mannato case, initially pending the outcome of a similar case and then upon the death of the plaintiff. Colonial BancGroup Securities Litigation Beginning in July 2009, STRH, certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (“Colonial BancGroup”) and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup’s goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss which is currently pending. Consent Order with the Federal Reserve On April 13, 2011, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the Federal Reserve in which SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and STM agreed to strengthen oversight of and improve risk management, internal audit, and compliance programs concerning, the residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure activities of STM. Under the terms of the Consent Order, SunTrust Bank and STM agreed, among other things, to: (a) strengthen the coordination of communications between borrowers and STM concerning ongoing loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; (b) submit a plan to enhance processes for oversight and management of third party vendors used in connection with residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; (c) enhance and strengthen the enterprise-wide compliance program with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; (d) ensure appropriate oversight of STM's activities with respect to Mortgage Electronic Registration System; (e) review and remediate, if necessary, STM's management information systems for its residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure activities; (f) improve the training of STM officers and staff concerning applicable law, supervisory guidance and internal procedures concerning residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities, including the single point of contact for foreclosure and loss mitigation; (g) retain an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive assessment of STM's risks, including, but not limited to, operational, compliance, transaction, legal, and reputational risks particularly in the areas of residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure; (h) enhance and strengthen the enterprise-wide risk management program with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; and (i) enhance and strengthen the internal audit program with respect to residential loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities. The comprehensive third party risk assessment was completed in August 2011, and the Company continues implementation of recommended enhancements. All of the action plans designed to complete the above enhancements were accepted by the Federal Reserve and are currently in implementation. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company engaged an independent third party consultant approved by the Federal Reserve to prepare a validation report with respect to compliance with the aspects of the Consent Order referenced above. The independent third party consultant completed its review and submitted its report to the Federal Reserve during the second quarter of 2013. The Company is currently implementing the recommendations noted in this report. Under the terms of the Consent Order, SunTrust Bank and STM also retained an independent foreclosure consultant approved by the Federal Reserve to conduct a review of residential foreclosure actions pending at any time during the period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010, for loans serviced by STM, to identify any errors, misrepresentations, or deficiencies, determine whether any instances so identified resulted in financial injury, and prepare a written report detailing the findings. On January 7, 2013, the Company, as well as nine other mortgage servicers, entered into an agreement with the OCC and the Federal Reserve to end the independent foreclosure review process and accelerate remediation of loans included in the review. Consistent with this agreement, an Amendment to the Consent Order was entered on February 28, 2013. Pursuant to the Amendment, the Company made a cash payment of $63 million to fund lump-sum payments to borrowers who faced a foreclosure action on their primary residence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, and committed $100 million to effect loss mitigation or other foreclosure prevention actions. Lump-sum payments to borrowers are being administered by an independent agent approved by the Federal Reserve. The amount of lump-sum payment to a borrower was determined pursuant to a Financial Remediation Framework jointly established by the OCC and the Federal Reserve based on circumstances surrounding the foreclosure activity. The OCC and the Federal Reserve released Independent Foreclosure Review Payment Agreement Details on April 9, 2013 providing that lump-sum payments can range from $300 to $125,000. As a result of the agreement, the Company is no longer incurring the consulting and legal costs of the independent third parties providing file review, borrower outreach, and legal services associated with the Consent Order foreclosure file review. Redacted versions of the action plans and the Company's engagement letter with the independent foreclosure consultant are available on the Federal Reserve's website. The full text of the Consent Order is available on the Federal Reserve's website and was filed as Exhibit 10.25 to the Company's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The February 28, 2013 Amendment to the Consent Order also is available on the Federal Reserve's website and is filed as Exhibit 10.1 to this Form 10-Q. As a result of the Federal Reserve's review of the Company's residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing practices that preceded the Consent Order, the Federal Reserve announced that it would impose a civil money penalty. At this time, no such penalty has been imposed, and the amount and terms of such a potential penalty have not been finally determined. The Company's accrual for expected costs related to a potential settlement with the U.S. and the States Attorneys General regarding certain mortgage servicing claims, which is discussed below at "United States and States Attorneys General Mortgage Servicing Claims," includes the expected incremental costs, if any, of a civil money penalty relating to the Consent Order. Putative ERISA Class Actions Company Stock Class Action Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the “District Court”) in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions. On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. Mutual Funds Class Action On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company substituting two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and will defend itself in the appeal filed with the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust Mortgage Reinsurance Class Actions STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal “captive reinsurance” arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust’s selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal “kickbacks” in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this case. A motion to dismiss is pending in the Thurmond case. United States and States Attorneys General Mortgage Servicing Claims In January 2012, the Company commenced discussions related to a mortgage servicing settlement with the U.S., through the Department of Justice and Attorneys General for several states regarding various potential claims relating to the Company's mortgage servicing activities. While these discussions are continuing, the Company has not reached any agreement with such parties. The Company has estimated the cost of resolving these and potential similar claims, including the costs of such a settlement, borrower-specific actions, and/or legal matters to defend such claims if they are not settled, and accrued this expense in its financial results. False Claim Act Litigation SunTrust Mortgage is a defendant in a qui tam lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the federal False Claims Act, United States ex rel. Bibby & Donnelly v. Wells Fargo, et al. This lawsuit originally was filed under seal, but the second amended complaint was unsealed by the District Court in October 2011. The plaintiffs, who allege that they are officers of a mortgage broker, allege that numerous mortgage originators, including SunTrust Mortgage, made false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to obtain loan guarantees by the VA under its Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loans ("IRRRL") program. Plaintiffs allege that the mortgage originators charged fees in connection with these loans that were not permitted under the IRRRL program and made false statements to the VA to the effect that the loans complied with all applicable regulations or program requirements. According to Plaintiffs, by doing so, the originators caused the VA to pay, among other costs, amounts to honor the loan guarantees to which they were not entitled. Plaintiffs have sued on their own behalf and on behalf of the U.S., and seek, among other things, unspecified damages equal to the loss that SunTrust Mortgage allegedly caused the U.S. (trebled under the False Claims Act), statutory civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. To date, the U.S. has not joined in the prosecution of this action, and SunTrust Mortgage and the relators have settled this dispute. HUD Investigation On April 25, 2012, the Company was informed of the commencement of an investigation by the HUD OIG relating to STM's origination practices for FHA loans. Since that time, STM has provided documents and continues to fully cooperate with the investigation. During the first quarter of 2013, the HUD OIG, together with the U.S. Department of Justice (collectively, the “Government”), advised STM of their preliminary investigation findings, including alleged violations of the False Claims Act. The Government and the Company remain engaged in settlement discussions that include both financial and non-financial terms and conditions. The Company continues to disagree with the analysis and methodology used to support the Government's allegations. Settlement of this matter is highly dependent upon the acceptable resolution of both the financial and non-financial provisions, and no assurances can be given at this time that an acceptable settlement agreement will be reached. Mortgage Modification Investigation STM has been cooperating with the United States Attorneys' Office for the Western District of Virginia and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (collectively, the “Government”) in their investigation of STM's administration of HAMP. More specifically, the Government's investigation focuses on whether, during 2009 and 2010, STM harmed borrowers and violated civil or criminal laws by failing to properly process applications for modifications of certain mortgages owned by the GSEs by devoting insufficient resources to its loss mitigation function and making misrepresentations to borrowers about timelines and other features associated with the HAMP modification process. The Government has advised STM that it has made no determinations about how it will proceed in this matter. STM continues to cooperate with the investigation and believes that it has substantial defenses to the asserted allegations.

NOTE 14 – CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on novel or unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. Because of these factors, the Company typically cannot provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. In no cases are those accrual amounts material to the financial condition of the Company. The actual costs of resolving these claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved.

For a limited number of legal matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. For other matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, such an estimate is not possible. For those matters where a loss is both estimable and reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses as $0 to approximately $400 million in excess of the reserves, if any, related to those matters. This amount reflects an increase of $100 million since December 31, 2012, primarily related to mortgage-related matters. This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available at June 30, 2013. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range; therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Based on current knowledge, it is the opinion of management that liabilities arising from legal claims in excess of the amounts currently reserved, if any, will not have a material impact to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, in light of the significant uncertainties involved in these matters and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results or cash flows for any given reporting period.

The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters:

Interchange and Related Litigation

Card Association Antitrust Litigation

The Company is a defendant, along with Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard International, as well as several other banks, in one of several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this litigation matter, refer to Note 12, “Reinsurance Arrangements and Guarantees.”

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco, California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. C04-2676 CR13. In these actions, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee for participants in the Star ATM Network. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants’ conduct was illegal per se. In August 2007, Concord and the bank defendants filed motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ per se claim. In March 2008, the Court granted the motions on the ground that Defendants’ conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed under the rule of reason. The Court certified this question for interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal on August 13, 2008. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint in which they asserted a rule of reason claim. This complaint was dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were given leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed yet another complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same. The Court granted this motion in part by dismissing one of the Plaintiffs' two claims but denied the motion as to one claim. On September 16, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim on the grounds that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that claim. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing en banc; however, this motion was denied. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in July 2013.

Overdraft Fee Cases

The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative class actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer accounts.

The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on May 6, 2009. This action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10, 2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result of the method of posting order used by the Company, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a putative class of “all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment,” as well as “all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges.” Plaintiffs sought restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both motions were denied. The denial of the motion to compel arbitration was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit remanded this matter back to the District Court with instructions to the District Court to review its prior ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. The District Court then denied SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration for different reasons. SunTrust appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit and, on March 1, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and ordered that SunTrust's Motion to Compel Arbitration be granted. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, which was denied. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also was denied. This matter is now closed.

The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion is pending.

The third of these cases, Byrd v. SunTrust Bank, was filed on April 23, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered as a result of the method of posting order used by SunTrust, which allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to his checking account, and purport to bring this action on behalf of a putative class of “all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been submitted to the bank for payment,” as well as “all SunTrust account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based on SunTrust Bank’s reordering of charges.” Plaintiff seeks restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys’ fees, and other relief deemed equitable by the Court. The District Court granted SunTrust's motion to compel arbitration in July 2013.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. v. United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina

STM filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia in July 2009 against United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina (“UGRIC”) seeking payment of denied mortgage insurance claims on second lien mortgages. STM's claims were in two counts. Count One involved a common reason for denial of claims by UGRIC for a group of loans. Count Two involved a group of loans with individualized reasons for the claim denials asserted by UGRIC. UGRIC counterclaimed for declaratory relief involving interpretation of the insurance policy involving certain caps on the amount of claims covered and whether STM was obligated to continue to pay premiums after any caps were met. The Court granted STM's motion for summary judgment as to liability on Count One and, after a trial on damages, awarded STM $34 million along with $6 million in prejudgment interest on August 19, 2011. The Court stayed Count Two pending final resolution of Count One. On September 13, 2011, the Court awarded an additional $5 million to the Count One judgment for fees on certain issues. On UGRIC's counterclaim, the Court agreed that UGRIC's interpretation was correct regarding STM's continued obligations to pay premiums in the future after coverage caps are met. However, on August 19, 2011, the Court found for STM on its affirmative defense that UGRIC can no longer enforce the contract due to its prior breaches and, consequently, denied UGRIC's request for a declaration that it was entitled to continue to collect premiums after caps are met.

On February 1, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (i) upheld the judgment to STM of $45 million ($34 million in claims, $6 million in interest, and $5 million in additional fees); and (ii) vacated the ruling in STM's favor regarding the defense STM asserted to UGRIC's claim that STM owes continued premium after the caps are reached. On February 15, 2013, UGRIC filed a motion asking the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear its appeal. This request was denied on March 4, 2013. The case has returned to the District Court for further proceedings regarding STM's defense to UGRIC's claims for additional premiums.

Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation

Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained pending following the class settlement. STRH has settled one such individual action and is in settlement discussions in another. The other individual lawsuits have been dismissed, subject to an appeal in one case and a potential appeal in another.

SunTrust Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On September 9, 2011, the Company and several current and former executives and members of the Board were named in a shareholder derivative action filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, Sharon Benfield v. James M. Wells, III. et al., and on December 19, 2011, the Company and several current and former executives and members of the Board were named as defendants in a separate shareholder derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Edward Mannato v. James M. Wells, III, et al. The plaintiffs in both of these lawsuits purport to bring their claims on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company. Generally, these lawsuits are substantially overlapping and make very broad allegations of mismanagement of, and misrepresentations about, the Company's exposure to loan losses and the residential real estate market leading up to and during the recent real estate and credit market crises. In both cases, the plaintiffs assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Mannato lawsuit arises out of a shareholder demand made of SunTrust in March 2008 that was the subject of an investigation conducted at the direction of a committee of independent members of the Company's Board. This committee concluded that no wrongdoing had occurred and that the interests of the Company's shareholders would not be served by pursuing the claims alleged in the plaintiff's demand. A new committee conducted a new investigation of the allegations raised in the lawsuit and concluded that no wrongdoing had occurred and that the interests of the Company's shareholders would not be served by pursuing the claims alleged in the plaintiff's demand. The Benfield lawsuit arises out of a shareholder demand made of SunTrust in February 2011 that was the subject of an investigation conducted at the direction of the same Board committee, which concluded that these allegations had no merit. On October 29, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in the Benfield case. This decision is on appeal. The Court stayed the Mannato case, initially pending the outcome of a similar case and then upon the death of the plaintiff.

Colonial BancGroup Securities Litigation

Beginning in July 2009, STRH, certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (“Colonial BancGroup”) and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup’s goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss which is currently pending.

Consent Order with the Federal Reserve

On April 13, 2011, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the Federal Reserve in which SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and STM agreed to strengthen oversight of and improve risk management, internal audit, and compliance programs concerning, the residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure activities of STM. Under the terms of the Consent Order, SunTrust Bank and STM agreed, among other things, to: (a) strengthen the coordination of communications between borrowers and STM concerning ongoing loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; (b) submit a plan to enhance processes for oversight and management of third party vendors used in connection with residential mortgage servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; (c) enhance and strengthen the enterprise-wide compliance program with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; (d) ensure appropriate oversight of STM's activities with respect to Mortgage Electronic Registration System; (e) review and remediate, if necessary, STM's management information systems for its residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, and foreclosure activities; (f) improve the training of STM officers and staff concerning applicable law, supervisory guidance and internal procedures concerning residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities, including the single point of contact for foreclosure and loss mitigation; (g) retain an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive assessment of STM's risks, including, but not limited to, operational, compliance, transaction, legal, and reputational risks particularly in the areas of residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure; (h) enhance and strengthen the enterprise-wide risk management program with respect to oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities; and (i) enhance and strengthen the internal audit program with respect to residential loan servicing, loss mitigation and foreclosure activities. The comprehensive third party risk assessment was completed in August 2011, and the Company continues implementation of recommended enhancements. All of the action plans designed to complete the above enhancements were accepted by the Federal Reserve and are currently in implementation. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company engaged an independent third party consultant approved by the Federal Reserve to prepare a validation report with respect to compliance with the aspects of the Consent Order referenced above. The independent third party consultant completed its review and submitted its report to the Federal Reserve during the second quarter of 2013. The Company is currently implementing the recommendations noted in this report.

Under the terms of the Consent Order, SunTrust Bank and STM also retained an independent foreclosure consultant approved by the Federal Reserve to conduct a review of residential foreclosure actions pending at any time during the period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010, for loans serviced by STM, to identify any errors, misrepresentations, or deficiencies, determine whether any instances so identified resulted in financial injury, and prepare a written report detailing the findings. On January 7, 2013, the Company, as well as nine other mortgage servicers, entered into an agreement with the OCC and the Federal Reserve to end the independent foreclosure review process and accelerate remediation of loans included in the review. Consistent with this agreement, an Amendment to the Consent Order was entered on February 28, 2013. Pursuant to the Amendment, the Company made a cash payment of $63 million to fund lump-sum payments to borrowers who faced a foreclosure action on their primary residence between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, and committed $100 million to effect loss mitigation or other foreclosure prevention actions. Lump-sum payments to borrowers are being administered by an independent agent approved by the Federal Reserve. The amount of lump-sum payment to a borrower was determined pursuant to a Financial Remediation Framework jointly established by the OCC and the Federal Reserve based on circumstances surrounding the foreclosure activity. The OCC and the Federal Reserve released Independent Foreclosure Review Payment Agreement Details on April 9, 2013 providing that lump-sum payments can range from $300 to $125,000. As a result of the agreement, the Company is no longer incurring the consulting and legal costs of the independent third parties providing file review, borrower outreach, and legal services associated with the Consent Order foreclosure file review. Redacted versions of the action plans and the Company's engagement letter with the independent foreclosure consultant are available on the Federal Reserve's website. The full text of the Consent Order is available on the Federal Reserve's website and was filed as Exhibit 10.25 to the Company's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The February 28, 2013 Amendment to the Consent Order also is available on the Federal Reserve's website and is filed as Exhibit 10.1 to this Form 10-Q. As a result of the Federal Reserve's review of the Company's residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing practices that preceded the Consent Order, the Federal Reserve announced that it would impose a civil money penalty. At this time, no such penalty has been imposed, and the amount and terms of such a potential penalty have not been finally determined. The Company's accrual for expected costs related to a potential settlement with the U.S. and the States Attorneys General regarding certain mortgage servicing claims, which is discussed below at "United States and States Attorneys General Mortgage Servicing Claims," includes the expected incremental costs, if any, of a civil money penalty relating to the Consent Order.

Putative ERISA Class Actions

Company Stock Class Action

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the “District Court”) in November 2008.

On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate interlocutory appeal. On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions.

On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

Mutual Funds Class Action

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company substituting two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and will defend itself in the appeal filed with the Eleventh Circuit.

SunTrust Mortgage Reinsurance Class Actions

STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal “captive reinsurance” arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust’s selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin Rivers results in illegal “kickbacks” in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this case. A motion to dismiss is pending in the Thurmond case.

United States and States Attorneys General Mortgage Servicing Claims

In January 2012, the Company commenced discussions related to a mortgage servicing settlement with the U.S., through the Department of Justice and Attorneys General for several states regarding various potential claims relating to the Company's mortgage servicing activities. While these discussions are continuing, the Company has not reached any agreement with such parties. The Company has estimated the cost of resolving these and potential similar claims, including the costs of such a settlement, borrower-specific actions, and/or legal matters to defend such claims if they are not settled, and accrued this expense in its financial results.

False Claim Act Litigation

SunTrust Mortgage is a defendant in a qui tam lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the federal False Claims Act, United States ex rel. Bibby & Donnelly v. Wells Fargo, et al. This lawsuit originally was filed under seal, but the second amended complaint was unsealed by the District Court in October 2011. The plaintiffs, who allege that they are officers of a mortgage broker, allege that numerous mortgage originators, including SunTrust Mortgage, made false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to obtain loan guarantees by the VA under its Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loans ("IRRRL") program. Plaintiffs allege that the mortgage originators charged fees in connection with these loans that were not permitted under the IRRRL program and made false statements to the VA to the effect that the loans complied with all applicable regulations or program requirements. According to Plaintiffs, by doing so, the originators caused the VA to pay, among other costs, amounts to honor the loan guarantees to which they were not entitled. Plaintiffs have sued on their own behalf and on behalf of the U.S., and seek, among other things, unspecified damages equal to the loss that SunTrust Mortgage allegedly caused the U.S. (trebled under the False Claims Act), statutory civil penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. To date, the U.S. has not joined in the prosecution of this action, and SunTrust Mortgage and the relators have settled this dispute.

HUD Investigation

On April 25, 2012, the Company was informed of the commencement of an investigation by the HUD OIG relating to STM's origination practices for FHA loans. Since that time, STM has provided documents and continues to fully cooperate with the investigation. During the first quarter of 2013, the HUD OIG, together with the U.S. Department of Justice (collectively, the “Government”), advised STM of their preliminary investigation findings, including alleged violations of the False Claims Act. The Government and the Company remain engaged in settlement discussions that include both financial and non-financial terms and conditions. The Company continues to disagree with the analysis and methodology used to support the Government's allegations. Settlement of this matter is highly dependent upon the acceptable resolution of both the financial and non-financial provisions, and no assurances can be given at this time that an acceptable settlement agreement will be reached.

Mortgage Modification Investigation

STM has been cooperating with the United States Attorneys' Office for the Western District of Virginia and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (collectively, the “Government”) in their investigation of STM's administration of HAMP. More specifically, the Government's investigation focuses on whether, during 2009 and 2010, STM harmed borrowers and violated civil or criminal laws by failing to properly process applications for modifications of certain mortgages owned by the GSEs by devoting insufficient resources to its loss mitigation function and making misrepresentations to borrowers about timelines and other features associated with the HAMP modification process. The Government has advised STM that it has made no determinations about how it will proceed in this matter. STM continues to cooperate with the investigation and believes that it has substantial defenses to the asserted allegations.