Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	NOTE 15 – 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 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. These factors make it difficult for the Company to 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 Company's financial statements at March 31, 2016 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to comply with various settlement agreements, where applicable. 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 in excess of related reserves, if any. Management currently estimates these losses to range from $0 to approximately $180 million. 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 available at March 31, 2016. 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 of operations, 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 and MasterCard, 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 12, “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. In two of such dismissed individual actions, the plaintiffs were unable to appeal the dismissals of their claims until their claims against a third party were resolved. In one of these individual actions, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument in that appeal was heard on April 21, 2016. In the other individual action, no appeal has been filed. 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 incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that the Bank'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. The Bank 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 was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal. 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 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. This case 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. On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“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 filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. The discovery process has begun. Mutual Funds Class Actions 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 plaintiffs purport 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 seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs 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 naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014. On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. Intellectual Ventures II v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and SunTrust Bank This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 24, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that SunTrust violates one or more of several patents held by plaintiff in connection with SunTrust’s provision of online banking services and other systems and services. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged patent infringement of an unspecified amount, as well as attorney’s fees and expenses. The matter was stayed on October 7, 2014 pending inter partes review of a number of the claims asserted against SunTrust. Consent Order with the Federal Reserve On April 13, 2011, SunTrust, SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the FRB in which SunTrust, 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. On July 25, 2014, the FRB imposed a $160 million civil money penalty 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 Company expects to satisfy the entirety of this assessed penalty 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, discussed below at “United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement.” SunTrust continues its engagement with the FRB to demonstrate compliance with its commitments under the Consent Order. United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement In the second quarter of 2014, STM and the U.S., through the DOJ, HUD, and Attorneys General for several states, reached a final settlement agreement related to the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. The settlement agreement became effective on September 30, 2014 when the court entered the Consent Judgment. Pursuant to the settlements, STM made $50 million in cash payments and committed to provide $500 million of consumer relief by the fourth quarter of 2017 and to implement certain mortgage servicing standards. While subject to confirmation by the independent Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight (“OMSO”) appointed to review and certify compliance with the provisions of the settlement, the Company believes it has fulfilled its consumer relief commitments. STM also implemented all of the prescribed servicing standards within the required timeframes. Compliance with the servicing standards continues to be monitored, tested, and reported quarterly by an internal review group and semi-annually by the OMSO. As a result, the Company does not expect to incur additional costs in satisfying its consumer relief obligations or implementation of the servicing standards associated with the settlement. DOJ Investigation of GSE Loan Origination Practices In January 2014, STM received notice from the DOJ of an investigation regarding the origination and underwriting of single family residential mortgage loans sold by STM to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The DOJ and STM have not yet engaged in any material dialogue about how this matter may proceed and no allegations have been raised against STM. STM continues to cooperate with the investigation. Mortgage Modification Investigation In the third quarter of 2014, STM resolved claims by 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 relating to STM's administration of HAMP. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company paid $46 million, including $20 million to fund housing counseling for homeowners, $10 million in restitution to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $16 million to the U.S. Treasury, and transferred its minimum consumer remediation obligation of $179 million to the required deposit account to be controlled by a third party claims administrator. The Company incurred a $204 million pre-tax charge in the second quarter of 2014 in connection with this matter, which included its estimate of the consumer remediation obligation. STM continues to cooperate with the government and the claims administrator regarding administration of the consumer remediation payment process, the claim period for which ended in the first quarter of 2016. During the first quarter of 2016, the government released STM of any monetary obligation beyond the $179 million minimum consumer remediation obligation. 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. The case was transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The litigation remains active in the Bankruptcy Court and discovery has commenced. 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 with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them by SunTrust 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. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their case. United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Foreclosure Expense Investigation STM has been cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District") in a broad-based industry investigation regarding claims for foreclosure-related expenses charged by law firms in connection with the foreclosure of loans guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA. The investigation relates to a private litigant qui tam lawsuit filed under seal and remains in early stages. The Southern District has not yet advised STM how it will proceed in this matter. The Southern District and STM engaged in dialogue regarding potential resolution of this matter as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement, but were unable to reach agreement. Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of Georgia borrowers. STM has not yet responded to the allegations but will defend itself against these allegations. Northern District of Georgia Investigation On April 28, 2016, the Bank received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia in connection with an investigation pertaining to a suspected embezzlement by an employee of a SunTrust business client. The subpoena requests information regarding the Bank’s Anti-Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act compliance processes to detect such crimes by employees of business clients. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.

NOTE 15 – 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 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. These factors make it difficult for the Company to 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 Company's financial statements at March 31, 2016 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to comply with various settlement agreements, where applicable. 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 in excess of related reserves, if any. Management currently estimates these losses to range from $0 to approximately $180 million. 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 available at March 31, 2016. 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 of operations, 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 and MasterCard, 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 12, “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. In two of such dismissed individual actions, the plaintiffs were unable to appeal the dismissals of their claims until their claims against a third party were resolved. In one of these individual actions, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument in that appeal was heard on April 21, 2016. In the other individual action, no appeal has been filed.

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 incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that the Bank'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. The Bank 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 was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal.

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 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock.

This case 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.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“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 filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. The discovery process has begun.

Mutual Funds Class Actions

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 plaintiffs purport 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 seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs 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 naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments.

After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case.

Intellectual Ventures II v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. and SunTrust Bank

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 24, 2013. Plaintiff alleges that SunTrust violates one or more of several patents held by plaintiff in connection with SunTrust’s provision of online banking services and other systems and services. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged patent infringement of an unspecified amount, as well as attorney’s fees and expenses. The matter was stayed on October 7, 2014 pending inter partes review of a number of the claims asserted against SunTrust.

Consent Order with the Federal Reserve

On April 13, 2011, SunTrust, SunTrust Bank, and STM entered into a Consent Order with the FRB in which SunTrust, 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.

On July 25, 2014, the FRB imposed a $160 million civil money penalty 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 Company expects to satisfy the entirety of this assessed penalty 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, discussed below at “United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement.” SunTrust continues its engagement with the FRB to demonstrate compliance with its commitments under the Consent Order.

United States Mortgage Servicing Settlement

In the second quarter of 2014, STM and the U.S., through the DOJ, HUD, and Attorneys General for several states, reached a final settlement agreement related to the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. The settlement agreement became effective on September 30, 2014 when the court entered the Consent Judgment. Pursuant to the settlements, STM made $50 million in cash payments and committed to provide $500 million of consumer relief by the fourth quarter of 2017 and to implement certain mortgage servicing standards. While subject to confirmation by the independent Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight (“OMSO”) appointed to review and certify compliance with the provisions of the settlement, the Company believes it has fulfilled its consumer relief commitments. STM also implemented all of the prescribed servicing standards within the required timeframes. Compliance with the servicing standards continues to be monitored, tested, and reported quarterly by an internal review group and semi-annually by the OMSO. As a result, the Company does not expect to incur additional costs in satisfying its consumer relief obligations or implementation of the servicing standards associated with the settlement.

DOJ Investigation of GSE Loan Origination Practices

In January 2014, STM received notice from the DOJ of an investigation regarding the origination and underwriting of single family residential mortgage loans sold by STM to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The DOJ and STM have not yet engaged in any material dialogue about how this matter may proceed and no allegations have been raised against STM. STM continues to cooperate with the investigation.

Mortgage Modification Investigation

In the third quarter of 2014, STM resolved claims by 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 relating to STM's administration of HAMP. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company paid $46 million, including $20 million to fund housing counseling for homeowners, $10 million in restitution to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and $16 million to the U.S. Treasury, and transferred its minimum consumer remediation obligation of $179 million to the required deposit account to be controlled by a third party claims administrator. The Company incurred a $204 million pre-tax charge in the second quarter of 2014 in connection with this matter, which included its estimate of the consumer remediation obligation. STM continues to cooperate with the government and the claims administrator regarding administration of the consumer remediation payment process, the claim period for which ended in the first quarter of 2016. During the first quarter of 2016, the government released STM of any monetary obligation beyond the $179 million minimum consumer remediation obligation.

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. The case was transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The litigation remains active in the Bankruptcy Court and discovery has commenced.

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 with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them by SunTrust 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. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their case.

United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Foreclosure Expense Investigation

STM has been cooperating with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District") in a broad-based industry investigation regarding claims for foreclosure-related expenses charged by law firms in connection with the foreclosure of loans guaranteed or insured by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA. The investigation relates to a private litigant qui tam lawsuit filed under seal and remains in early stages. The Southern District has not yet advised STM how it will proceed in this matter. The Southern District and STM engaged in dialogue regarding potential resolution of this matter as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement, but were unable to reach agreement.

Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016. Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of Georgia borrowers. STM has not yet responded to the allegations but will defend itself against these allegations.

Northern District of Georgia Investigation

On April 28, 2016, the Bank received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia in connection with an investigation pertaining to a suspected embezzlement by an employee of a SunTrust business client. The subpoena requests information regarding the Bank’s Anti-Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act compliance processes to detect such crimes by employees of business clients. The Company is cooperating with the investigation.