Legal Proceedings

The nature of Popular’s business ordinarily results in a certain number of claims, litigation, investigations, and legal and administrative cases and proceedings (“Legal Proceedings”). When the Corporation determines that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, it vigorously defends itself. The Corporation will consider the settlement of cases (including cases where it has meritorious defenses) when, in management’s judgment, it is in the best interest of both the Corporation and its shareholders to do so. On at least a quarterly basis, Popular assesses its liabilities and contingencies relating to outstanding Legal Proceedings utilizing the latest information available. For matters where it is probable that the Corporation will incur a material loss and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Corporation establishes an accrual for the loss. Once established, the accrual is adjusted on at least a quarterly basis as appropriate to reflect any relevant developments. For matters where a material loss is not probable, or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual is established.

In certain cases, exposure to loss exists in excess of the accrual to the extent such loss is reasonably possible, but not probable. Management believes and estimates that the range of reasonably possible losses (with respect to those matters where such limits may be determined, in excess of amounts accrued) for current Legal Proceedings ranged from $0 to approximately $31.5 million as of March 31, 2019. For certain other cases, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss at this time. Any estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the Legal Proceedings (including the fact that many of them are currently in preliminary stages), the existence of multiple defendants in several of the current Legal Proceedings whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous unresolved issues in many of the Legal Proceedings, and the inherent uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such Legal Proceedings. Accordingly, management’s estimate will change from time-to-time, and actual losses may be more or less than the current estimate.

While the outcome of Legal Proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, management believes that the amount it has already accrued is adequate and any incremental liability arising from the Legal Proceedings in matters in which a loss amount can be reasonably estimated will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters in a reporting period, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position for that particular period.

Set forth below is a description of the Corporation’s significant Legal Proceedings.

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO

Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation

Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the “Popular Defendants”) have been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Pérez Díaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the “Defendant Insurance Companies”). Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the purported “class” of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the “good experience” commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to replead following limited targeted discovery. The Court of Appeals and then the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, both denied the Popular Defendants’ request to review the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. In December 2017, plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint and, on January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, in October 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the class after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the class certification, which the Court declined to entertain. In November 2018 and in January 2019, Plaintiffs filed voluntary dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and Antilles Insurance Company, respectively. Hence, now the Popular Defendants remain the sole defendants in this action.

A status conference was held in March 2019, where, among other things, plaintiffs stated that they sought to make changes to the certified class that seek to better define the size of the class as well as the scope of the remedies sought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted their proposed changes to the class on April 8, 2019, which were timely opposed by Popular. A status and settlement conference is set for October 22, 2019.

BPPR has separately been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). Between late March and early April of 2017, co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6, 2017 was subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. In July 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, in March 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance’s dismissal. In May 2018, all defendants filed their respective Petitions of Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which denied review. On May 2, 2019, a hearing was held in the Court of First Instance, where the parties requested that the Court first determine the validity of the endorsement obtained by Antilles Insurance Company and approved by the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner, which was challenged by the co-defendant in the third-party complaint. The Court agreed to first rule on the validity of the endorsement and set an injunction hearing for September 2019 in case the validity of said endorsement is upheld.

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Claims

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam González Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel (or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”) and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that all defendants (over 20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR waived service of process in June 2017 and filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants. On March 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by the District Court, on August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On January 22, 2019, the Appellants filed their brief. Appellees’ filed a request for extension of time to file their brief, until March 27, 2019. However, on March 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals entered an order where it consolidated three pending appeals related to the same subset of facts. Thus, the briefs filed by the Appellants were vacated and the Clerk of the Court has yet to set a new briefing schedule.

BPPR has also been named a defendant in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the González Camacho action referenced above, on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. As in González Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their complaint. After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the González Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the Court granted, denying the motion for class certification in September 2018. On April 5, 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting BPPR’s and several other defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 15, 2019, which Popular timely opposed and which remains pending.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a complaint for damages and breach of contract captioned Héctor Robles Rodriguez et al. v. Municipio de Ceiba, et al. Plaintiffs are residents of a development called Hacienda Las Lomas. Through the Doral Bank-FDIC assisted transaction, BPPR acquired a significant number of mortgage loans within this development and is currently the primary mortgage lender in the project. Plaintiffs claim damages against the developer, contractor, the relevant insurance companies, and most recently, their mortgage lenders, because of a landslide that occurred in October 2015, affecting various streets and houses within the development. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the mortgage lenders, including BPPR, should be deemed liable for their alleged failure to properly inspect the subject properties. Plaintiffs demand $30 million in damages plus attorney’s fees, costs and the annulment of their mortgages. BPPR extended plaintiffs four consecutive six-month payment forbearances, the last of which is still in effect, and it is engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiffs. In November 2017, the FDIC notified BPPR that it had agreed to indemnify the Bank in connection with its Doral Bank-related exposure, pursuant to the terms of the relevant Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the FDIC. The FDIC filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (“USDC”) on March 2018 and, in April 2018, the state court stayed the proceedings in response thereto. On October 18, 2018, the Court granted FDIC’s motion to stay the proceedings until plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies.

Mortgage-Related Investigations

The Corporation and its subsidiaries from time to time receive requests for information from departments of the U.S. government that investigate mortgage-related conduct. In particular, BPPR has received subpoenas and other requests for information from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General mainly concerning real estate appraisals and residential and construction loans in Puerto Rico. The Corporation is cooperating with these requests and is in discussions regarding the resolution of such matters. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of those discussions.

Separately, in July 2017, management learned that certain letters generated by the Corporation to comply with Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFPB”) rules requiring written notification to borrowers who have submitted a loss mitigation application were not mailed to borrowers over a period of up to approximately three-years due to a systems interface error. Loss mitigation is a process whereby creditors work with mortgage loan borrowers who are having difficulties making their loan payments on their debt. The loss mitigation process applies both to mortgage loans held by the Corporation and to mortgage loans serviced by the Corporation for third parties. The Corporation has corrected the systems interface error that caused the letters not to be sent.

The Corporation notified applicable regulators and conducted a review of its mortgage files to assess the scope of potential customer impact. The review found that while the mailing error extended to approximately 23,000 residential mortgage loans (approximately 50% of which are serviced by the Corporation for third parties), the number of borrowers actually harmed by the mailing error was substantially lower. This was due to, among other things, the fact that the Corporation regularly uses means other than the mail to communicate with borrowers, including email and hand delivery of written notices at our mortgage servicing centers or bank branches. Importantly, more than half of those borrowers potentially subject to such error actually closed on a loss mitigation alternative. Furthermore, the Corporation’s outreach and remediation efforts with respect to potentially affected borrowers are substantially complete.

The Corporation has also engaged in remediation with respect to other printing and mailings incidents and other servicing matters in its mortgage servicing operation.

The Corporation is engaged in ongoing dialogue with applicable regulators with respect to the aforementioned mortgage servicing matters and there can be no assurances as to the outcome thereof. At this point, we are not able to estimate the financial impact of the foregoing.

Other Significant Proceedings

In June 2017, a syndicate comprised of BPPR and other local banks (the “Lenders”) filed an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against Betteroads Asphalt and Betterecycling Corporation (the “Involuntary Debtors”). This filing followed attempts by the Lenders to restructure and resolve the Involuntary Debtors’ obligations and outstanding defaults under a certain credit agreement, first through good faith negotiations and subsequently, through the filing of a collection action against the Involuntary Debtors in local court. The involuntary debtors subsequently counterclaimed, asserting damages in excess of $900 million. The Lenders ultimately joined in the commencement of these involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against the Debtors in order to preserve and recover the Involuntary Debtors’ assets, having confirmed that the Involuntary Debtors were transferring assets out of their estate for little or no consideration. The Involuntary Debtors subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings and for damages against the syndicate, arguing both that this petition was filed in bad faith and that there was a bona fide dispute as to the petitioners’ claims, as set forth in the counterclaim filed by the Involuntary Debtors in local court. The court allowed limited discovery to take place prior to an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of debtors’ motion to dismiss.

On November 30, 2018, the Court issued an order where it ruled that: (1) the Lenders, as petitioning creditors, satisfied the three-prong requirement for filing an involuntary petition; (2) nonetheless, bad faith is an independent cause for dismissal of an involuntary petition under section 303(b) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (3) the Involuntary Debtors failed to show that dismissal pursuant to section 305(a)(1) abstention is in the best interest of both the creditors and the debtors. An evidentiary hearing is set for June 27 and 28, 2019 to consider whether the involuntary petitions were filed in bad faith, that is, for an improper purpose that constitutes an abuse of the bankruptcy process.

POPULAR SECURITIES

Puerto Rico Bonds and Closed-End Investment Funds

The volatility in prices and declines in value that Puerto Rico municipal bonds and closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Puerto Rico municipal bonds have experienced since August 2013 have led to regulatory inquiries, customer complaints and arbitrations for most broker-dealers in Puerto Rico, including Popular Securities. Popular Securities has received customer complaints and is named as a respondent (among other broker-dealers) in 169 arbitration proceedings with aggregate claimed amounts of approximately $201 million, including one arbitration with claimed damages of approximately $30 million. While Popular Securities believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these proceedings, it has often determined that it is in its best interest to settle certain claims rather than expend the money and resources required to see such cases to completion. The Puerto Rico Government’s defaults and non-payment of its various debt obligations, as well as the Commonwealth’s and the Financial Oversight Management Board’s (the “Oversight Board”) decision to pursue restructurings under Title III and Title VI of PROMESA, have increased and may continue to increase the number of customer complaints (and claimed damages) filed against Popular Securities concerning Puerto Rico bonds and closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Puerto Rico bonds. An adverse result in the arbitration proceedings described above, or a significant increase in customer complaints, could have a material adverse effect on Popular.

PROMESA Title III Proceedings

In 2017, the Oversight Board engaged the law firm of Kobre & Kim to carry out an independent investigation on behalf of the Oversight Board regarding, among other things, the causes of the Puerto Rico financial crisis. Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Securities (collectively, the “Popular Companies”) were served by, and cooperated with, the Oversight Board in connection with requests for the preservation and voluntary production of certain documents and witnesses with respect to Kobre & Kim’s independent investigation.

On August 20, 2018, Kobre & Kim issued its Final Report, which contained various references to the Popular Companies, including an allegation that Popular Securities participated as an underwriter in Commonwealth’s 2014 issuance of government obligation bonds notwithstanding having allegedly advised against it. The report discussed that such allegation could give rise to an unjust enrichment claim against the Corporation and could also serve as a basis to equitably subordinate claims filed by the Corporation in the Title III proceeding to other third-party claims.

After the publication of the Final Report, the Oversight Board created a special claims committee (“SCC”) and, before the end of the applicable two-year statute of limitations for the filing of such claims pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the SCC, along with the Commonwealth’s Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (“UCC”), filed various avoidance, fraudulent transfer and other claims against third parties, including government vendors and financial institutions and other professionals involved in bond issuances being challenged as invalid by the SCC and the UCC. Prior to the filing of those claims, the Popular Companies, the SCC and the UCC entered into a tolling agreement with respect to potential claims the SCC and the UCC, on behalf of the Commonwealth or other Title III debtors, may assert against the Popular Companies for the avoidance and recovery of payments and/or transfers made to the Popular Companies or as a result of any role of the Popular Companies in the offering of the aforementioned challenged bond issuances.