Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Contingencies

NOTE 18 – 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 June 30, 2019 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 $150 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 June 30, 2019. 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 15, “Guarantees.”

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. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and the decision was affirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals on March 6, 2019. The Bank filed a petition with the Georgia Supreme Court on April 15, 2019, asking the court to review the decision.

Mutual Funds ERISA 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 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”). Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs. On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the District Court.

After various appeals, the cases 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. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new defendants. On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16, 2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three individual defendants from action. On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On

March 29, 2019, the District Court dismissed RidgeWorth Capital Management, Inc. from the lawsuit and on July 16, 2019, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claim for successor liability. A motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining claims has been filed by the defendants and is pending.

Millennium Lender Claim Trust v. STRH and SunTrust Bank, et al.

In August 2017, the Trustee of the Millennium Lender Claim Trust filed a suit in the New York State Court against STRH, the Bank, and other lenders of the $1.775 B Millennium Health LLC f/k/a Millennium Laboratories LLC (“Millennium”) syndicated loan. The Trustee alleges that the loan was actually a security and that defendants misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in the offering materials and communications provided concerning the legality of Millennium's sales, marketing, and billing practices and the known risks posed by a pending government investigation into the illegality of such practices. The Trustee brings claims for violation of the California Corporate Securities Law, the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Colorado Securities Act, and the Illinois Securities Law, as well as negligent misrepresentation and seeks rescission of sales of securities as well as unspecified rescissory damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Trustee's motion to remand the case back to state court was denied. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims on April 12, 2019.

SunTrust and BB&T Merger Litigation

Following the Merger announcement, six civil actions were filed challenging, among other things, the adequacy of the disclosures contained in the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus filed by BB&T with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction. Five of these suits were filed by purported SunTrust stockholders against SunTrust and its Board and assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act challenging the adequacy of the public disclosures made concerning the proposed transaction. One of these five suits also asserts a claim against BB&T under Section 20(a). The sixth suit was filed by a purported BB&T stockholder against BB&T and its board of directors and asserts claims under state law challenging, among other things, the adequacy of the public disclosures made concerning the proposed transaction. Following discussions, SunTrust and BB&T reached agreement with plaintiffs to resolve these actions by making certain supplemental disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction, which became definitive on June 19, 2019. To date, one of the suits filed by purported SunTrust stockholders has been dismissed with prejudice, and the suit filed by a purported BB&T stockholder has been discontinued with prejudice. Plaintiffs in the four remaining suits have similarly agreed to dismiss their actions in their entirety, with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only and without prejudice to all other members of the putative class.