Litigation and Regulatory Matters

In addition to the matters described below, in the ordinary course of business, we are routinely named as defendants in, or as parties to, various legal actions and proceedings relating to activities of our current and/or former operations. These legal actions and proceedings may include claims for substantial or indeterminate compensatory or punitive damages, or for injunctive relief. In the ordinary course of business, we also are subject to governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal), certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by these regulators, we receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with various aspects of our regulated activities.

In view of the inherent unpredictability of litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate or when the proceedings or investigations are in the early stages, we cannot determine with any degree of certainty the timing or ultimate resolution of litigation and regulatory matters or the eventual loss, fines, penalties or business impact, if any, that may result. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving litigation and regulatory matters, however, may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved for those matters.

For the litigation and governmental and regulatory matters disclosed below as to which a loss in excess of accrued liability is reasonably possible in future periods and for which there is sufficient currently available information on the basis of which management believes it can make a reliable estimate, we believe a reasonable estimate could be as much as $1.8 billion. The litigation and governmental and regulatory matters underlying this estimate of possible loss will change from time to time and actual results may vary significantly from this current estimate.

Given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Litigation

Credit Card Litigation Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. Various individual (non-class) actions were also brought by merchants against Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated. These class and individual merchant actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws. These suits were consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. (“MDL 1720”). On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the “Sharing Agreements”) that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and our affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. A class settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on November 27, 2012. The class settlement is subject to final approval by the District Court. Pursuant to the class settlement agreement and the Sharing Agreements, we have deposited our portion of the class settlement amount into an escrow account for payment in the event the class settlement is approved. On October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs became effective, and pursuant to the Sharing Agreements we have deposited our portion of that settlement amount into an escrow account.

Numerous merchants-including absent class member large and small merchants and certain named plaintiff merchants and trade associations-have objected and/or opted out of the settlement during the exclusion period, which ended on May 28, 2013. Visa's and MasterCard's analysis of the data determined that the defendants had the right to terminate the settlement agreement because the volume threshold was reached, but elected not to do so. We anticipate that most of the larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate separate actions seeking to recover damages. A hearing on class plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement was held on September 12, 2013, before the District Court. The parties now await the District Court's decision.

Checking Account Overdraft Litigation On March 1, 2011 an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11) (the “State Action”) was filed in New York State Court on behalf of a putative New York class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft fees due to the posting order of debit card transactions. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part with leave to amend.

Subsequently, plaintiffs (the “Levin Plaintiffs”) in the State Action acquired new attorneys and filed a new action in federal court, captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (E.D.N.Y. 12-CV-5696) (the “Levin Federal Action”). The Levin Federal Action seeks relief for a putative nationwide class and a putative New York subclass, asserting the same claims as the State Action and adding allegations that deposited funds are not made available pursuant to HSBC's funds availability disclosures. The Levin Plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss the State Action, which the state court denied.

The Levin Plaintiffs' former counsel amended the complaint in the State Action substituting a new named plaintiff, Darek Jura, and the State Action was recaptioned In Re HSBC Bank USA, N.A. Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. Jura then filed a motion for class certification. HSBC's response deadline has not been set, as the State Action is being held in abeyance until August 14, 2013. Jura also filed a federal action captioned Darek Jura v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (E.D.N.Y. 12-CV-6224) (the “Jura Federal Action”), presenting similar claims to the State Action.

On February 20, 2013, a fourth action captioned Hanes v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (E.D. Va. 13-CV-00229) (the "Hanes Action") was filed. The Hanes Action presents similar claims to the previously filed actions and seeks relief for a putative nationwide class and a putative California subclass.

We subsequently sought centralization of all three federal actions with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), and on June 5, 2013, the JPML created the HSBC Overdraft MDL and transferred the Hanes Action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY") for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the Levin Federal Action and the Jura Federal Action. HSBC has filed motions to dismiss in each of the three federal actions,

On July 22, 2013 the EDNY issued an Order which: (1) consolidated the three federal actions; (2) appointed counsel in the Jura Federal Action and the Hanes Action as interim class counsel; (3) ordered the interim class counsel to file a consolidated complaint within 30 days; and (4) denied HSBC's previously filed motions to dismiss as moot, without prejudice. Interim class counsel filed their consolidated complaint on September 30, 2013. Additionally, the plaintiffs in each of the underlying federal actions, respectively, have served written discovery, and HSBC has responded and made productions in each of the actions.

DeKalb County, et al. v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. In October 2012, three of the five counties constituting the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia, filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Housing Act against HSBC North America and numerous subsidiaries, including HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Bank USA, in connection with residential mortgage lending, servicing and financing activities. In the action, captioned DeKalb County, Fulton County, and Cobb County, Georgia v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga. No. 12-CV-03640), the plaintiff counties assert that the defendants' allegedly discriminatory lending and servicing practices led to increased loan delinquencies, foreclosures and vacancies, which in turn caused the plaintiff counties to incur damages in the form of lost property tax revenues and increased municipal services costs, among other damages. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss on September 26, 2013.

Lender-Placed Insurance Matters Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining an insurance policy (hazard or flood insurance) on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails to maintain their own policy. The cost of the lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower. Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny from both federal and state agencies. Beginning in October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and insurers, including our affiliate, HSBC Insurance (USA) Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial Services (the “NYDFS”) with respect to lender-placed insurance activities dating back to September 2005. We have and will continue to provide documentation and information to the NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena. Additionally, in March 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“MA LPI CID”) to HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) seeking information about lender-placed insurance activities. We are providing responsive documentation and information to the Massachusetts Attorney General and will continue to do so.

Between June 2011 and April 2013, several putative class actions related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against HSBC USA, Inc. and certain of our subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); West et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687); Weller et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185); and Hoover et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.D.N.Y. 13-CV-00149); and Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (S.D. Fla 13-CV-21104). A new putative class action was filed against HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) in the Southern of District of New York on August 21, 2013 entitled, Ross F. Gilmour v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:13-cv-05896-ALC). These actions relate primarily to industry-wide practices, and include allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the insurance, the value and cost of the insurance that is placed, back-dating policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse, self-dealing and insufficient disclosure. HSBC filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the Montanez, Lopez, Weller, and Hoover matters. The Court denied the motion to dismiss in the Lopez matter and we await the court’s ruling on the other motions. In addition, in Montanez, plaintiffs filed a motion for multi-district litigation treatment to consolidate the action with Lopez, which was denied on July 25, 2013. In West, discovery is ongoing.

Private Mortgage Insurance Matters Private Mortgage Insurance (“PMI”) is insurance required to be obtained by home purchasers who provide a down payment less than a certain percentage threshold of the purchase price, typically 20 percent. The insurance generally protects the lender against a default on the loan. In January 2013, a putative class action related to PMI was filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including HSBC USA, Inc. and certain of our subsidiaries captioned Ba v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D. Pa. No. 2:13-cv-00072PD). This action relates primarily to industry-wide practices and includes allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the insurance, self-dealing, insufficient disclosures and improper fees. Following the court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the HSBC entities answered the complaint on August 15, 2013.

People of the State of New York v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association and HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA). On June 3, 2013, the New York Attorney General ("AG") commenced a special proceeding against HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Mortgage Corporation ("HSBC"), alleging that HSBC repeatedly violated Executive Law 63(12). Specifically, the AG claims that HSBC has an obligation to file a Request for Judicial Intervention ("RJI") at the same time that it files proof of service in a foreclosure action. The filing of an RJI triggers the scheduling of a mandatory settlement conference. According to the AG, the failure to file the RJI causes a significant delay in mandatory settlement conferences being scheduled, during which time the AG alleges additional penalties, fees and interest accrue to the borrower. The AG seeks both a change in HSBC's practices and damages for individual homeowners. HSBC believes it has a number of factual and legal defenses available to the AG's claims. On August 20, 2013, HSBC filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the New York Attorney General's Petition. A hearing was held on the motion on October 17, 2013 and the parties now await the court's decision.

Credit Default Swap Litigation In July 2013 HSBC Bank, HSBC Holdings plc. and HSBC Bank plc. were named as defendants, among others, in three putative class actions filed in federal courts located in New York and Chicago. These class actions allege that the defendants, which include ISDA, Markit and several other financial institutions, conspired to restrain trade in violation of the federal anti-trust laws by, among other things, restricting access to credit default swap pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange market, with the purpose and effect of artificially inflating the bid/ask spread paid to buy and sell credit default swaps in the United States. The Plaintiffs in these suits purport to represent a class of all persons who purchased or sold credit default swaps to defendants in the United States. Four additional putative class actions alleging violations of federal anti-trust laws concerning market practices relating to credit default swaps were filed in July and August 2013 in federal courts in New York and Chicago against HSBC Bank, HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc. These actions all are at a very early stage. On October 16, 2013, in considering motions filed by plaintiffs to consolidate the case in federal court in New York or Chicago, the Multi-District Litigation panel ordered that all cases be consolidated in the Southern District of New York as In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2476.

Madoff Litigation In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff Securities”), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and investment adviser. Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided custodial, administration and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the United States whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities. Plaintiffs (including funds, funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee, as described below) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in suits in the United States, Ireland, Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain suits (which include U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three related putative class actions in the Southern District of New York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)), dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one of the actions against the HSBC defendants - the claims of investors in Thema International Fund plc. - in light of a proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including, subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading amendment, HSBC Bank USA). In December 2011, the District Court lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary approval of the settlement. In light of the District Court's decisions, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement. The Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate. Plaintiffs in all three actions filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the actions are captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities Litigation (2nd Cir, Nos. 12-156, 12-184, 12-162). Briefing in that appeal was completed in September 2012 and oral argument was held in April 2013. On September 16, 2013, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds. On October 1, 2013 the Thema plaintiff filed a petition to have the appeal reheard by the Court of Appeals en banc. The Court of Appeals has postponed its decision on the petition until after the United States Supreme Court decides Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice, No. 12-179.

In December 2010, the Madoff Securities trustee commenced suits against various HSBC companies in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and in the English High Court. The U.S. action, captioned Picard v. HSBC et al (Bankr S.D.N.Y. No. 09-01364), which also names certain funds, investment managers, and other entities and individuals, sought $9 billion in damages and additional recoveries from HSBC Bank USA, certain of our foreign affiliates and the various other codefendants. It sought damages against the HSBC defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting Madoff's fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. In July 2011, after withdrawing the case from the Bankruptcy Court in order to decide certain threshold issues, the District Court dismissed the trustee's various common law claims on the grounds that the trustee lacks standing to assert them. In December 2011, the trustee filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the action is captioned Picard v. HSBC Bank plc et al. (2nd Cir., No. 11-5207). Briefing in that appeal was completed in April 2012, and oral argument was held in November 2012. On June 20, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court. On October 9, 2013, the trustee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking leave for a further appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The HSBC defendants’ response to the petition for a writ of certiorari is currently due December 9, 2013.

The District Court returned the remaining claims to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. Those claims seek, pursuant to U.S. bankruptcy law, recovery of unspecified amounts received by the HSBC defendants from funds invested with Madoff, including amounts that the HSBC defendants received when they redeemed units held in the various funds. The HSBC defendants acquired those fund units in connection with financing transactions the HSBC defendants had entered into with various clients. The trustee's U.S. bankruptcy law claims also seek recovery of fees earned by the HSBC defendants for providing custodial, administration and similar services to the funds. Between September 2011 and April 2012, the HSBC defendants and certain other defendants moved again to withdraw the case from the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court granted those withdrawal motions as to certain issues, and briefing and oral arguments on the merits of the withdrawn issues are now complete. The District Court has issued rulings on several of the withdrawn issues, but decisions with respect to other issues remain pending and are expected in 2013. The HSBC defendants’ responses to the remaining bankruptcy law claims are currently due in the Bankruptcy Court on December 20, 2013. The trustee's English action, which names HSBC Bank USA and other HSBC entities as defendants, seeks recovery of unspecified transfers of money from Madoff Securities to or through HSBC on the ground that the HSBC defendants actually or constructively knew of Madoff's fraud. HSBC has not been served with the trustee's English action.

Between October 2009 and April 2012, Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited (“Fairfield”), funds whose assets were directly or indirectly invested with Madoff Securities, commenced multiple suits in the British Virgin Islands and the United States against numerous fund shareholders, including various HSBC companies that acted as nominees for clients of HSBC's private banking business and other clients who invested in the Fairfield funds. The Fairfield actions, including an action captioned Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v. Zurich Capital Markets et al. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. No. 10-03634), in which HSBC Bank USA is a defendant, and an action captioned Fairfield Sentry Ltd. et al. v. ABN AMRO Schweiz AG et al. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. No. 10-03636), naming beneficial owners of accounts held in the name of Citco Global Custody (NA) NV, which include HSBC Private Bank, a division of HSBC Bank USA, as nominal owner of those accounts for its customers, seek restitution of amounts paid to the defendants in connection with share redemptions, on the ground that such payments were made by mistake, based on inflated values resulting from Madoff's fraud. Some of these actions also seek recovery of the share redemptions under British Virgin Islands insolvency law. The U.S. actions are currently stayed in the Bankruptcy Court pending developments in related appellate litigation in the British Virgin Islands.

HSBC Bank USA was also a defendant in an action filed in July 2011, captioned Wailea Partners, LP v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (N.D. Ca. No. 11-CV-3544), arising from derivatives transactions between Wailea Partners, LP and HSBC Bank USA that were linked to the performance of a fund that placed its assets with Madoff Securities pursuant to a specified investment strategy. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that HSBC Bank USA knew or should have known that the fund's assets would not be invested as contemplated. The plaintiff also alleged that HSBC Bank USA marketed, sold and entered into the derivatives transactions on the basis of materially misleading statements and omissions in violation of California law. The plaintiff sought rescission of the transactions and return of amounts paid to HSBC Bank USA in connection with the transactions, together with interest, fees, expenses and disbursements. In December 2011, the District Court granted HSBC's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the action is captioned Wailea Partners, LP v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., (9th Cir., No. 11-18041). Briefing on that appeal was completed in May 2012, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

There are many factors that may affect the range of possible outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of the various Madoff-related proceedings including, but not limited to, the circumstances of the fraud, the multiple jurisdictions in which proceeding have been brought and the number of different plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings. For these reasons, among others, we are unable to reasonably estimate the aggregate liability or ranges of liability that might arise as a result of these claims but they could be significant. In any event, we consider that we have good defenses to these claims and will continue to defend them vigorously.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America, et al. On March 14, 2013, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia naming as defendants HSBC Bank USA and other panel USD LIBOR panel banks, as well as the British Bankers' Association. The lawsuit alleges improper practices in connection with the setting of USD LIBOR, and claims violation of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, and fraud arising out of various swap agreements entered into by Freddie Mac with the USD LIBOR panel banks, including HSBC Bank USA. In May 2013 the lawsuit was transferred to the USD LIBOR Litigation Multi-District Proceeding pending before Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York where it will be subject to a stay imposed by that court on all new proceedings.

The lawsuit is at an early stage, and does not allege specific damages as to HSBC Bank USA.

Mortgage Securitization Activity and Litigation In addition to the repurchase risk described in Note 18, “Guarantee Arrangements and Pledged Assets,” we have also been involved as a sponsor/seller of loans used to facilitate whole loan securitizations underwritten by HSI. During 2005-2007, we purchased and sold $24 billion of whole loans to HSI which were subsequently securitized and sold by HSI to third parties. The outstanding principal balance on these loans was approximately $6.6 billion and $7.4 billion at September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Participants in the U.S. mortgage securitization market that purchased and repackaged whole loans have been the subject of lawsuits and governmental and regulatory investigations and inquiries, which have been directed at groups within the U.S. mortgage market, such as servicers, originators, underwriters, trustees or sponsors of securitizations, and at particular participants within these groups. As the industry's residential mortgage foreclosure issues continue, HSBC Bank USA has taken title to an increasing number of foreclosed homes as trustee on behalf of various securitization trusts. As nominal record owner of these properties, HSBC Bank USA has been sued by municipalities and tenants alleging various violations of law, including laws regarding property upkeep and tenants' rights. While we believe and continue to maintain that the obligations at issue and any related liability are properly those of the servicer of each trust, we continue to receive significant and adverse publicity in connection with these and similar matters, including foreclosures that are serviced by others in the name of “HSBC, as trustee.”

HSBC Bank USA and certain of our affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of actions in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) offerings, which generally allege that the offering documents for securities issued by securitization trusts contained material misstatements and omissions, including statements regarding the underwriting standards governing the underlying mortgage loans. In September 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the “FHFA”), acting in its capacity as conservator for the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA, HSBC North America, HSI, HSI Asset Securitization Corporation (“HASCO”) and five former and current officers and directors of HASCO seeking damages or rescission of mortgage-backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were either underwritten or sponsored by HSBC entities. The aggregate unpaid principal balance of the securities was approximately $1.6 billion at September 30, 2013. This action, captioned Federal Housing Finance Agency, as Conservator for the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. CV 11-6189-LAK), is one of a series of similar actions filed against 17 financial institutions alleging violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with the sale of private-label RMBS purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, primarily from 2005 to 2008. This action, along with all of the similar FHFA RMBS actions that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was transferred to a single judge, who directed the defendant in the first-filed matter, UBS, to file a motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the District Court filed its decision denying the motion to dismiss FHFA's securities law claims and granting the motion to dismiss FHFA's negligent misrepresentation claims. The District Court's ruling formed the basis for rulings on the other matters, including the action filed against HSBC Bank USA and our affiliates. On April 5, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court. In December 2012, the District Court directed the FHFA parties to schedule mediation with the Magistrate Judge assigned to the action. In January 2013, the FHFA parties met with the Magistrate Judge to discuss how to structure a mediation. Since that time, three of the FHFA defendants (GE, Citigroup and UBS) have resolved their lawsuits (the terms of these settlements are largely confidential, but have been disclosed to varying degrees, including to some extent by the defendants in securities filings). Discovery in the action against HSBC is proceeding.

In January 2012, Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank (“DZ Bank”) filed a summons with notice in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming as defendants HSBC North America, HSBC USA, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Markets (USA) Inc., HASCO and HSI in connection with DZ Bank's alleged purchase of $122.4 million in RMBS from the HSBC defendants. In February 2012, HSH Nordbank AG (“HSH”) filed a summons with notice in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming as defendants HSBC Holdings plc., HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC USA, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Markets (USA) Inc., HASCO, and two Blaylock entities alleging HSH purchases of $41.3 million in RMBS from the HSBC and Blaylock defendants. In May 2012, HSBC removed both the DZ Bank and HSH cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases were consolidated in an action captioned Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG, New York Branch v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc. et al (S.D.N.Y. No. 12-CV-4025) following removal. In September 2012, DZ Bank and HSH filed a consolidated complaint against all defendants named in their prior summonses other than HSBC Holdings plc. The claims against HSBC are for (i) fraud; (ii) fraudulent concealment; (iii) negligent misrepresentation; (iv) aiding and abetting fraud; and (v) rescission. HSBC has moved to dismiss this suit, and this motion is pending.

In December 2012, Bayerische Landesbank (“BL”) filed a summons with notice in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming as defendants HSBC, HSBC North America, HSBC USA, HSBC Markets (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank USA, HSI Asset Securitization Corp. and HSI. In May 2013 BL served the HSBC entities with a complaint alleging that BL purchased $75 million in RMBS from the defendants and has sustained unspecified damages as a result of material misrepresentations and omissions regarding certain characteristics of the mortgage loans backing the securities. The claims against the HSBC entities are for (i) fraud; (ii) fraudulent concealment; (iii) negligent misrepresentation; (iv) aiding and abetting fraud; and (v) rescission. This action is at a very early stage.

In October 2013, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”), as Trustee of HASCO 2007-NC1, served a summons with notice previously filed in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming HBUS as the sole defendant. The summons alleges that DBNTC brought the action at the direction of certificateholders of the Trust, seeking specific performance and damages of at least $508 million arising out of the alleged breach of various representations and warranties made by HBUS in the applicable loan purchase agreement regarding certain characteristics of the mortgage loans contained in the Trust. This action is at a very early stage.

In December 2010 and February 2011, we received subpoenas from the SEC seeking production of documents and information relating to our involvement, and the involvement of our affiliates, in specified private-label RMBS transactions as an issuer, sponsor, underwriter, depositor, trustee or custodian as well as our involvement as a servicer. We have also had preliminary contacts with other governmental authorities exploring the role of trustees in private-label RMBS transactions. In February 2011, we also received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York) seeking production of documents and information relating to loss mitigation efforts with respect to HUD-insured mortgages on residential properties located in the State of New York. In January 2012, our affiliate, HSI, was served with a Civil Investigative Demand by the Massachusetts State Attorney General seeking documents, information and testimony related to the sale of RMBS to public and private customers in the State of Massachusetts from January 2005 to the present.

We expect these type of claims to continue. As a result, we may be subject to additional claims, litigation and governmental and regulatory scrutiny related to our participation in the U.S. mortgage securitization market, either individually or as a member of a group.

Governmental and Regulatory Matters

Foreclosure Practices In April 2011, HSBC Bank USA entered into a consent cease and desist order with the OCC (the “OCC Servicing Consent Order”) and our affiliate, HSBC Finance Corporation, and our common indirect parent, HSBC North America, entered into a similar consent order with the Federal Reserve (together with the OCC Servicing Consent Order, the “Servicing Consent Orders”) following completion of a broad horizontal review of industry foreclosure practices. The OCC Servicing Consent Order requires HSBC Bank USA to take prescribed actions to address the deficiencies noted in the joint examination and described in the consent order. We continue to work with the OCC and the Federal Reserve to align our processes with the requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders and are implementing operational changes as required.

The Servicing Consent Orders required an independent review of foreclosures (the “Independent Foreclosure Review”) pending or completed between January 2009 and December 2010 to determine if any borrower was financially injured as a result of an error in the foreclosure process. As required by the Servicing Consent Orders, an independent consultant was retained to conduct that review. On February 28, 2013, HSBC Bank USA entered into an agreement with the OCC, and HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC North America entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve (together the "IFR Settlement Agreements"), pursuant to which the Independent Foreclosure Review has ceased and been replaced by a broader framework under which we and twelve other participating servicers will, in the aggregate, provide in excess of $9.3 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help eligible borrowers. Pursuant to the IFR Settlement Agreements, HSBC North America has made a cash payment of $96 million into a fund used to make payments to borrowers that were in active foreclosure during 2009 and 2010 and, in addition, will provide other assistance (e.g., loan modifications) to help eligible borrowers. As a result, in 2012, we recorded expenses of $19 million which reflects the portion of HSBC North America's total expense of $104 million that we believe is allocable to us. Rust Consulting, Inc., the paying agent, began mailing checks to eligible borrowers in the second quarter of 2013. Borrowers who receive compensation will not be required to execute a release or waiver of rights and will not be precluded from pursuing litigation concerning foreclosure or other mortgage servicing practices. For participating servicers, including HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Finance Corporation, fulfillment of the terms of the IFR Settlement Agreements will satisfy the Independent Foreclosure Review requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders, including the wind down of the Independent Foreclosure Review.

The Servicing Consent Orders do not preclude additional enforcement actions against HSBC Bank USA or our affiliates by bank regulatory, governmental or law enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or State Attorneys General, which could include the imposition of civil money penalties and other sanctions relating to the activities that are the subject of the Servicing Consent Orders. Pursuant to the IFR Settlement Agreement with the OCC, however, the OCC has agreed that it will not assess civil money penalties or initiate any further enforcement action with respect to past mortgage servicing and foreclosure-related practices addressed in the Servicing Consent Orders, provided the terms of the IFR Settlement Agreement are fulfilled. The OCC's agreement not to assess civil money penalties is further conditioned on HSBC North America making payments or providing borrower assistance pursuant to any agreement that may be entered into with the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans within two years. The Federal Reserve has agreed that any assessment of civil money penalties by the Federal Reserve will reflect a number of adjustments, including amounts expended in consumer relief and payments made pursuant to any agreement that may be entered into with the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans. In addition, the IFR Settlement Agreements do not preclude private litigation concerning these practices.

Separate from the Servicing Consent Orders and the settlement related to the Independent Foreclosure Review discussed above, in February 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and State Attorneys General of 49 states announced a settlement with the five largest U.S. mortgage servicers with respect to foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices. Following the February 2012 settlement, these government agencies initiated discussions with other mortgage industry servicers. HSBC Bank USA, together with our affiliate HSBC Finance Corporation, have had discussions with U.S. bank regulators and other governmental agencies regarding a potential resolution, although the timing of any settlement is not presently known. We recorded an accrual of $38 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 (which was reduced by $6 million in the second quarter of 2013) reflecting the portion of the HSBC North America accrual that we currently believe is allocable to HSBC Bank USA. As this matter progresses and more information becomes available, we will continue to evaluate our portion of the HSBC North America liability which may result in a change to our current estimate. Any such settlement, however, may not completely preclude other enforcement actions by state or federal agencies, regulators or law enforcement agencies related to foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices, including, but not limited to, matters relating to the securitization of mortgages for investors. In addition, such a settlement would not preclude private litigation concerning these practices.

Anti-Money Laundering, Bank Secrecy Act and Office of Foreign Assets Control Investigations. In October 2010, HSBC Bank USA entered into a consent cease and desist order with the OCC, and our indirect parent, HSBC North America, entered into a consent cease and desist order with the Federal Reserve (together, the “AML/BSA Consent Orders”). These actions require improvements to establish an effective compliance risk management program across our U.S. businesses, including various issues relating to BSA and Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) compliance. Steps continue to be taken to address the requirements of the AML/BSA Consent Orders to achieve compliance, and ensure that effective policies and procedures are maintained.

In December 2012, HSBC, HSBC North America and HSBC Bank USA entered into agreements to achieve a resolution with U.S. and United Kingdom government agencies regarding past inadequate compliance with AML/BSA and sanctions laws, including the previously reported investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, the OCC and the U.S. Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") in connection with AML/BSA compliance, including cross-border transactions involving our cash handling business in Mexico and banknotes business in the U.S., and historical transactions involving parties subject to OFAC economic sanctions. As part of the resolution, HSBC and HSBC Bank USA entered into a five-year deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of West Virginia (the "U.S. DPA"), and HSBC entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement with the New York County District Attorney (“DANY DPA”), and HSBC consented to a cease and desist order and a monetary penalty order with the Federal Reserve. In addition, HSBC Bank USA entered into a monetary penalty consent order with FinCEN and a separate monetary penalty order with the OCC. HSBC also entered into an undertaking with the U.K. Financial Services Authority, now a Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) Direction, to comply with certain forward-looking obligations with respect to AML and sanctions requirements over a five-year term.

Under these agreements, HSBC and HSBC Bank USA made payments totaling $1.921 billion to U.S. authorities, of which $1.381 billion was attributed to and paid by HSBC Bank USA, and are continuing to comply with ongoing obligations. Over the five-year term of the agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice and the FCA, an independent monitor (who also will be, for FCA purposes, a "skilled person" under Section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act) will evaluate HSBC's progress in fully implementing its obligations, and will produce regular assessments of the effectiveness of HSBC's compliance function. Michael Cherkasky has been selected as the independent monitor and in July 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the U.S. DPA. The U.S. DPA remains pending under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

If HSBC and HSBC Bank USA fulfills all of the requirements imposed by the U.S. DPA, the U.S. Department of Justice's charges against those entities will be dismissed at the end of the five-year period of that agreement. Similarly, if HSBC fulfills all of the requirements imposed by the DANY DPA, DANY's charges against it will be dismissed at the end of the two-year period of that agreement. The U.S. Department of Justice may prosecute HSBC or HSBC Bank USA in relation to the matters that are subject of the U.S. DPA if HSBC or HSBC Bank USA breaches the terms of the US DPA, and DANY may prosecute HSBC in relation to the matters which are the subject of the DANY DPA if HSBC violates the terms of the DANY DPA.

HSBC Bank USA also entered into a separate consent order with the OCC requiring it to correct the circumstances and conditions as noted in the OCC's then most recent report of examination, imposing certain restrictions on HSBC Bank USA directly or indirectly acquiring control of, or holding an interest in, any new financial subsidiary, or commencing a new activity in its existing financial subsidiary, unless it receives prior approval from the OCC. HSBC Bank USA also entered into a separate consent order with the OCC requiring it to adopt an enterprise-wide compliance program.

The settlement with the U.S. and U.K. government agencies does not preclude private litigation relating to, among other things, HSBC's compliance with applicable AML/BSA and sanctions laws or other regulatory or law enforcement action for AML/BSA or sanctions matters not covered by the various agreements.

Our affiliate, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. (“HSI”), continues to cooperate in a review of its AML/BSA compliance program by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and a similar examination by the SEC, both of which were initiated in the third quarter of 2012.

Other Regulatory and Law Enforcement Investigations. We continue to cooperate in ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the IRS regarding whether certain HSBC Group companies and employees acted appropriately in relation to certain customers who had U.S. tax reporting requirements.

In April 2011, HSBC Bank USA received a “John Doe” summons from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) directing us to produce records with respect to U.S.-based clients of an HSBC Group company in India. We have cooperated fully by providing responsive documents in our possession in the U.S. to the IRS.

Also in April 2011, HSBC Bank USA received a subpoena from the SEC directing HSBC Bank USA to produce records in the United States related to, among other things, HSBC Private Bank Suisse SA's cross-border policies and procedures and adherence to U.S. broker-dealer and investment adviser rules and regulations when dealing with U.S. resident clients. HSBC Bank USA continues to cooperate with the SEC.

In July 2013, HSBC and certain of its affiliates, including HBUS, received a Statement of Objections from the European Commission relating to its ongoing investigation of alleged anti-competitive activity by a number of market participants in the credit derivatives market between 2006 and 2009. The Statement of Objections sets out the European Commission's preliminary views and does not prejudge the final outcome of its investigation. HSBC responded to the European Commission’s Statement of Objections on October 11, 2013. Based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for us to predict the resolution of the European Commission's investigation, including the timing or impact on HSBC or us.

Based on the facts currently known, in respect of each of these investigations, it is not practicable at this time for us to determine the terms on which these ongoing investigations will be resolved or the timing of such resolution or for us to estimate reliably the amounts, or range of possible amounts, of any fines and/or penalties. As matters progress, it is possible that any fines and/or penalties could be significant.