Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 19 – 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. 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 $300 million in excess of the reserves, if any, related to those 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 December 31, 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 on 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 financial condition, results, or cash flows for any given reporting period. The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: 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 several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this litigation matter, see Note 17, “Guarantees.” 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 following the class settlement. STRH settled two such individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed. The appeal period in one such case expired in January 2014 and in the other two will expire once the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have been resolved. 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. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part this motion. Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank This case 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. 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. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. 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 filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. This decision also is now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Consent Order with the Federal Reserve On April 13, 2011, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the FRB 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 the 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, action plans designed to complete the above enhancements were accepted by the FRB, and the Company has implemented enhancements consistent with such plans. During the second quarter of 2013, an independent third party consultant approved by the FRB completed its review and submitted to the FRB a validation report with respect to compliance with the aspects of the Consent Order referenced above. The Company continues its implementation of 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 FRB 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 amendment to the Consent Order with the OCC and the FRB to amend the 2011 Consent Order. This agreement ended the independent foreclosure review process created by the Consent Order, replacing it with an accelerated remediation program. As a result of the amendment, 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. The Company has taken actions to satisfy its commitments under the amendment to the Consent Order, and the Company's financial results at December 31, 2013 reflect the expected costs of satisfying its financial obligations under the amendment to the Consent Order. As a result of the FRB's review of the Company's residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing practices that preceded the Consent Order, the FRB announced that it would impose a $160 million civil money penalty. The Company expects to satisfy this obligation by providing consumer relief and certain cash payments as contemplated by the settlement with the U.S. and the States Attorneys' General regarding certain mortgage servicing claims, which is discussed below at "United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement and HUD Investigation of Origination Practices (FHA).” United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement and HUD Investigation of Origination Practices (FHA) In January 2012, the Company commenced discussions related to a mortgage servicing settlement with the U.S., through the DOJ, and Attorneys General for several states regarding various potential claims primarily relating to the Company's mortgage servicing activities. Since that time, the parties continued discussions regarding potential resolution. In September 2013, the Company reached agreements in principle with the HUD and the DOJ to settle certain alleged civil claims regarding our mortgage servicing and origination practices as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. Separately, 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 as part of the investigation. During the first quarter of 2013, the HUD OIG, together with the U.S. DOJ (collectively, the “Government”), advised STM of their preliminary investigation findings, including alleged violations of the False Claims Act. Throughout 2013, the Government and the Company engaged in discussions that accelerated in the third quarter and resulted in agreements in principle to resolve certain civil and administrative claims arising from FHA-insured mortgage loans originated by STM from January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2012. Pursuant to these two combined agreements in principle, the Company committed to provide $500 million of consumer relief, to make a $468 million cash payment, and to implement certain mortgage servicing standards. The Company is continuing to negotiate definitive settlement terms for each of these matters and has certain substantive disagreements with some of the positions being taken by the Government. The Company may be unable to resolve its disagreements with the Government and may not reach a definitive settlement agreement as it relates to the FHA matter. If the Company does not reach a definitive settlement agreement, then the Government may sue the Company alleging deficiencies in the Company's FHA loan origination practices. The Company is not able to predict the effect that a failure to resolve the FHA matter will have on the agreement in principle to settle the alleged claims regarding its mortgage servicing and origination practices. The Company's financial statements at December 31, 2013 reflected its estimated cost of the settlements, and the Company is not able to predict what its ultimate cost to resolve these matters will be if it is not able to reach definitive settlement agreements. Even if the Company were to reach a definitive settlement agreement with the Government to resolve the alleged mortgage servicing and origination claims as contemplated by the agreement in principle, the Company faces the risk of being unable to meet certain consumer relief commitments, resulting in increased costs to resolve this matter. Additionally, while the Company does not expect the consumer relief efforts or implementation of certain servicing standards associated with the settlements to have a material impact on its future financial results, this expectation is based on anticipated requirements of the definitive agreements which the parties have not finalized. DOJ Investigation of GSE Loan Origination Practices In January 2014, the DOJ notified STM of an investigation of the origination and underwriting of single family residential mortgage loans sold by STM to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. STM is cooperating with the investigation, which is in its preliminary stages. The DOJ and STM have not yet engaged in any dialogue about how this matter may proceed and no allegations have been raised against STM. Mortgage Modification Investigation STM has been cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (collectively, the “Western District”) in their investigation of STM's administration of HAMP. More specifically, the Western District 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 Western District and STM are engaged in dialogue about how this matter may proceed. While no determinations have been made, the Western District has indicated that they intend to pursue some form of action and may impose substantial penalties on STM. STM continues to cooperate with the investigation and believes that it has substantial defenses to the asserted allegations. Residential Funding Company, LLC v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. STM has been named as a defendant in a complaint filed December 17, 2013 in the Southern District of New York by Residential Funding Company, LLC. ("RFC"), a Chapter 11 debtor-affiliate of GMAC Mortgage, LLC., alleging breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with loan sales and seeking indemnification against losses allegedly suffered by RFC as a result of such alleged breaches. SunTrust Mortgage Lender Placed Insurance Class Actions STM has been named in three putative class actions similar to those that other financial institutions are facing which allege that the Company acted improperly in connection with the practice of force placing homeowners’ insurance in certain instances. Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that STM has violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. STM filed a motion to dismiss in this case that remains pending. The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer in this case. The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida. 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. 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.

NOTE 19 – 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. 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 $300 million in excess of the reserves, if any, related to those 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 December 31, 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 on 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 financial condition, results, or cash flows for any given reporting period.

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

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 several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this litigation matter, see Note 17, “Guarantees.”

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 following the class settlement. STRH settled two such individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed. The appeal period in one such case expired in January 2014 and in the other two will expire once the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have been resolved.

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. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part this motion.

Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank

This case 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.

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. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court.

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 filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. This decision also is now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

Consent Order with the Federal Reserve

On April 13, 2011, SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the FRB 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 the 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, action plans designed to complete the above enhancements were accepted by the FRB, and the Company has implemented enhancements consistent with such plans. During the second quarter of 2013, an independent third party consultant approved by the FRB completed its review and submitted to the FRB a validation report with respect to compliance with the aspects of the Consent Order referenced above. The Company continues its implementation of 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 FRB 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 amendment to the Consent Order with the OCC and the FRB to amend the 2011 Consent Order. This agreement ended the independent foreclosure review process created by the Consent Order, replacing it with an accelerated remediation program. As a result of the amendment, 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. The Company has taken actions to satisfy its commitments under the amendment to the Consent Order, and the Company's financial results at December 31, 2013 reflect the expected costs of satisfying its financial obligations under the amendment to the Consent Order.

As a result of the FRB's review of the Company's residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing practices that preceded the Consent Order, the FRB announced that it would impose a $160 million civil money penalty. The Company expects to satisfy this obligation by providing consumer relief and certain cash payments as contemplated by the settlement with the U.S. and the States Attorneys' General regarding certain mortgage servicing claims, which is discussed below at "United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement and HUD Investigation of Origination Practices (FHA).”

United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement and HUD Investigation of Origination Practices (FHA)

In January 2012, the Company commenced discussions related to a mortgage servicing settlement with the U.S., through the DOJ, and Attorneys General for several states regarding various potential claims primarily relating to the Company's mortgage servicing activities. Since that time, the parties continued discussions regarding potential resolution. In September 2013, the Company reached agreements in principle with the HUD and the DOJ to settle certain alleged civil claims regarding our mortgage servicing and origination practices as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement.

Separately, 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 as part of the investigation. During the first quarter of 2013, the HUD OIG, together with the U.S. DOJ (collectively, the “Government”), advised STM of their preliminary investigation findings, including alleged violations of the False Claims Act. Throughout 2013, the Government and the Company engaged in discussions that accelerated in the third quarter and resulted in agreements in principle to resolve certain civil and administrative claims arising from FHA-insured mortgage loans originated by STM from January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2012. Pursuant to these two combined agreements in principle, the Company committed to provide $500 million of consumer relief, to make a $468 million cash payment, and to implement certain mortgage servicing standards.

The Company is continuing to negotiate definitive settlement terms for each of these matters and has certain substantive disagreements with some of the positions being taken by the Government. The Company may be unable to resolve its disagreements with the Government and may not reach a definitive settlement agreement as it relates to the FHA matter. If the Company does not reach a definitive settlement agreement, then the Government may sue the Company alleging deficiencies in the Company's FHA loan origination practices. The Company is not able to predict the effect that a failure to resolve the FHA matter will have on the agreement in principle to settle the alleged claims regarding its mortgage servicing and origination practices.

The Company's financial statements at December 31, 2013 reflected its estimated cost of the settlements, and the Company is not able to predict what its ultimate cost to resolve these matters will be if it is not able to reach definitive settlement agreements. Even if the Company were to reach a definitive settlement agreement with the Government to resolve the alleged mortgage servicing and origination claims as contemplated by the agreement in principle, the Company faces the risk of being unable to meet certain consumer relief commitments, resulting in increased costs to resolve this matter. Additionally, while the Company does not expect the consumer relief efforts or implementation of certain servicing standards associated with the settlements to have a material impact on its future financial results, this expectation is based on anticipated requirements of the definitive agreements which the parties have not finalized.

DOJ Investigation of GSE Loan Origination Practices

In January 2014, the DOJ notified STM of an investigation of the origination and underwriting of single family residential mortgage loans sold by STM to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. STM is cooperating with the investigation, which is in its preliminary stages. The DOJ and STM have not yet engaged in any dialogue about how this matter may proceed and no allegations have been raised against STM.

Mortgage Modification Investigation

STM has been cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (collectively, the “Western District”) in their investigation of STM's administration of HAMP. More specifically, the Western District 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 Western District and STM are engaged in dialogue about how this matter may proceed. While no determinations have been made, the Western District has indicated that they intend to pursue some form of action and may impose substantial penalties on STM. STM continues to cooperate with the investigation and believes that it has substantial defenses to the asserted allegations.

Residential Funding Company, LLC v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

STM has been named as a defendant in a complaint filed December 17, 2013 in the Southern District of New York by Residential Funding Company, LLC. ("RFC"), a Chapter 11 debtor-affiliate of GMAC Mortgage, LLC., alleging breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with loan sales and seeking indemnification against losses allegedly suffered by RFC as a result of such alleged breaches.

SunTrust Mortgage Lender Placed Insurance Class Actions

STM has been named in three putative class actions similar to those that other financial institutions are facing which allege that the Company acted improperly in connection with the practice of force placing homeowners’ insurance in certain instances. Generally, the plaintiffs in these actions allege that STM has violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. STM filed a motion to dismiss in this case that remains pending. The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer in this case. The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida.

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.

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.