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.

Due to the inherent unpredictability of legal matters, including litigation, governmental 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 such matters or the eventual loss, fines, penalties or business impact, if any, that may result. We establish reserves for litigation, governmental and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. Once established, reserves are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The actual costs of resolving litigation and regulatory matters, however, may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved for those matters. During 2018, we recorded expense of $522 million related to various legal matters.

For the legal matters disclosed below, including litigation and governmental and regulatory matters, 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 $350 million for HUSI. The legal matters underlying this estimate of possible loss will change from time to time and actual results may differ significantly from this current estimate.

In addition, based on the facts currently known for each of the ongoing 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. As matters progress, it is possible that any fines and/or penalties could be significant.

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 any particular quarterly or annual period.

Credit Card Litigation Since 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard Incorporated ("MasterCard"), had been named as defendants in a number of consolidated merchant class actions and individual merchant actions had been filed against Visa and MasterCard, alleging 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. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720"). In 2011, MasterCard, Visa, 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. The district court granted final approval of the class settlement in 2013 and entered the Class Settlement Order and final judgment dismissing the class action shortly thereafter.

In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ("Second Circuit") issued a decision vacating class certification and approval of the class settlement in MDL 1720, concluding the class was inadequately represented by their counsel in violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing class actions as well as the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Second Circuit held that there was a conflict between two different but overlapping settlement classes: (1) an opt-out class, which permitted individual class members to forgo their share of the monetary relief and pursue individual claims; and (2) a non-opt-out class of merchants, including future merchants that do not currently exist, which provided injunctive relief mainly in the form of a rule change by Visa and MasterCard to allow merchants to surcharge card transactions until July 20, 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for review of the decision in March 2017.

In June 2018, the defendants, including the HSBC entities, reached an agreement in principle with counsel for the putative Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) opt-out class, seeking monetary relief, to resolve all claims as filed in a third consolidated amended class action complaint in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in January 2019 and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for November 2019. If settlement approval is granted, certain HSBC entities are responsible for a pro rata portion of the settlement amount, for which they are reserved, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements entered into by the defendants.

Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement during the exclusion period. Various opt-out merchants have filed opt-out suits in either state or federal court, most of which have been transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation, MDL 1720. To date, certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the defendants in those actions and certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the Sharing Agreements, are responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720.

DeKalb County, et al. v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga. Case No. 12-CV-03640) In 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 and HSBC Bank USA, in connection with residential mortgage lending, servicing and financing activities. In the action, 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. In March 2015, the court denied the HSBC defendants' motion for summary judgment. In November 2015, the HSBC defendants' motion for reconsideration of that decision was granted in part, and the court reversed certain aspects of its March 2015 decision.

This matter has been stayed pending U.S. Supreme Court review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("Eleventh Circuit") decision reversing motions to dismiss two similar cases filed against other lenders in City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp. & Wells Fargo & Co. In May 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, affirming the Eleventh Circuit's finding that a municipal plaintiff can be within the zone of interest conceivably protected by the Fair Housing Act. The court did not determine whether the injuries alleged by the city met the proximate cause test, but provided guidance for the lower courts in employing that test in further proceedings.

County of Cook v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:14-cv-2031). In 2014, Cook County, Illinois (the county in which the city of Chicago is located) filed an action pursuant to the Fair Housing Act against HSBC North America and certain subsidiaries that is substantially similar to the lawsuit filed by the counties of DeKalb, Fulton and Cobb in Georgia. In this action, as in DeKalb County, et al. v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., et al., the plaintiff asserts that the defendants' allegedly discriminatory lending and servicing practices led to increased loan delinquencies, foreclosures and vacancies, which in turn caused the plaintiff to incur damages in the form of lost property tax revenues and increased municipal services costs, among other damages. An amended complaint was filed in 2014, and the court denied the HSBC defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2015.

This matter had been stayed pending U.S. Supreme Court review of the Eleventh Circuit decision reversing motions to dismiss two similar cases filed against other lenders in City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp. & Wells Fargo & Co. In May 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, affirming the Eleventh Circuit's finding that a municipal plaintiff can be within the zone of interest conceivably protected by the Fair Housing Act. The court did not determine whether the injuries alleged by the city met the proximate cause test, but provided guidance for the lower courts in employing that test in further proceedings. Following the Supreme Court decision, the stay was lifted and an amended complaint was filed in July 2017.

In May 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court's ruling on the motion to dismiss allows Cook County's case to proceed, but significantly narrows the categories of damages available for potential recovery. Discovery is proceeding.

Credit Default Swap Matters

In June 2017, an action was filed by TeraExchange, LLC ("Tera"), a swaps execution facility, as well as its affiliates, against more than two dozen financial institutions, including HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and HSI, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws, and breaches of common law, arising out of an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to boycott Tera from the credit default swap trading market. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in September 2017 and we await a decision.

Foreign Exchange ("FX") Matters

U.S. Litigation In 2014, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America and HSBC Bank USA were named as defendants, among others, in an amended consolidated complaint that alleged, among other things, that defendants had conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign currency rates by sharing customers' confidential order flow information, thereby injuring plaintiffs and others by forcing them to pay artificial and non-competitive prices for products based off these foreign currency rates (the "Consolidated Action") (In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation; Case No. 13-CV-7789(LGS)). The HSBC defendants settled the Consolidated Action in September 2015 for a total payment of $285 million. HSBC Bank USA's portion of the settlement was $14.25 million. The court granted final approval of the settlement in August 2018. This matter will no longer be updated in this report in the future.

In November 2018, a complaint making similar allegations was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by several institutions that opted out of the Consolidated Action settlement naming, among other institutions, the same HSBC defendants that had been named in the Consolidated Action. (Allianz Global Investors GMBH, et al. v Bank of America Corporation, et al. (the "FX Opt Out Litigation")). The plaintiffs will be filing an amended complaint on or before March 1, 2019, and the defendants will be permitted to seek dismissal thereafter.

In addition to the Consolidated Action, other putative class actions making similar allegations are pending against HSBC defendants, as well as other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of: (1) retail customers (Nypl v. JPMorgan Chase, et al.; Case No. 1:15-CV-9300); and (2) "indirect purchasers" of FX (Contant v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.; Case No. 1:17-CV-03139). The Nypl defendants have answered the complaint and discovery is underway. In January 2019, the court in Nypl granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint. In October 2018, the court in Contant granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint, allowing plaintiffs to amend their state law antitrust and unfair trade practices claims but denying their request to amend their federal law antitrust claims.

It is possible that additional actions will be initiated against the HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank USA, in relation to their historical foreign exchange activities.

Investigations HSBC and certain of its affiliates, including HSBC Bank USA, along with a number of other firms, are being investigated by regulatory agencies in relation to trading on the foreign exchange market. We are cooperating with the investigations. HSBC has reached settlements with the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), the FRB and U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"). HSBC Bank USA was not a party to those settlements. The investigations involving HSBC Bank USA continue.

In January 2018, HSBC entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the Criminal Division of the DOJ (the "FX DPA"), which resolved the DOJ's investigation into HSBC's historical foreign exchange activities. Under the terms of the FX DPA, HSBC is required to further enhance its internal controls and procedures relating to its Global Markets business.

In September 2017, HSBC and HSBC North America entered into a consent order with the FRB in connection with its investigation into HSBC Group's historical FX exchange activities, which required HSBC and HSBC North America to undertake certain remedial steps.

In August 2016, the DOJ indicted two now-former HSBC employees and charged them with wire fraud and conspiracy relating to a 2011 foreign exchange transaction. One of the former employees was found guilty in October 2017, and has appealed his conviction.

In February 2017, the Competition Commission of South Africa referred a complaint for proceedings before the South African Competition Tribunal against 18 financial institutions, including HSBC Bank plc, for alleged misconduct related to the foreign exchange market in violation of South African antitrust laws. In April 2017, HSBC Bank plc filed an exception to the complaint, based on a lack of jurisdiction and statute of limitations. In January 2018, the South African Competition Tribunal approved the provisional referral of additional financial institutions, including HSBC Bank USA to the proceedings. These proceedings remain at an early stage.

Precious Metals Fix Matters

In re Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation) Since 2014, numerous putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California naming as defendants HSBC USA, HSI, HSBC and HSBC Bank plc, in addition to other members of the London Gold Fix. The complaints allege that from January 2004 through June 2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the afternoon London Gold Fix in order to reap profits on proprietary trades. The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties are proceeding under a third amended complaint. Discovery is proceeding.

In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation) In 2014, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York naming HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and the other members of The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2007 through December 2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of physical silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in violation of the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act and U.S. antitrust laws. The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties are proceeding under a third amended complaint. Discovery is proceeding.

Platinum and Palladium Fix Litigation Since 2014, several putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company (the "Platinum Group Metals or PGM Fixing"), including HSBC Bank USA, BASF Metals Limited, Goldman Sachs International and Standard Bank, plc. The complaints allege that, from January 2008 through November 2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the benchmark prices for physical Platinum Group Metals ("PGM") and PGM-based financial products. Plaintiffs have filed a third amended complaint and the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. We await a ruling.

Canada Litigation Beginning in December 2015, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA, HSI, HSBC Bank Canada and HSBC Securities Canada have been named, along with other institutions, in several putative class actions filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada. These suits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and silver derivatives. These claims include: (1) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Gold Fix); (2) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Silver Fix); (3) Benoit v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Quebec Province); and (4) Ayas v. La Banque de Nouvelle-Ecosse, et. al. (Superior Court of Justice, Quebec Province). These actions are at an early stage.

Investigations In 2014, the Antitrust Division and Criminal Fraud Section of the DOJ issued a document request to HSBC, seeking the voluntary production of certain documents in connection with a criminal investigation that the DOJ is conducting of alleged anti-competitive and manipulative conduct in precious metals trading. As of January 2019, the DOJ has closed its investigation without taking any action against HSBC, including HSBC Bank USA.

Madoff Litigation

In 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested and ultimately pleaded guilty to 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 ("Trustee"), as described below) have commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants arising out of Madoff Securities' fraud.

In 2010, the Trustee commenced suits against various HSBC companies in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ("U.S. Bankruptcy Court") and in the English High Court. The Trustee filed a suit in the U.S. captioned Picard v. HSBC et al (Bankr S.D.N.Y. Case No. 09-01364), which also names certain funds, investment managers, and other entities and individuals, against HSBC Bank USA and certain of our foreign affiliates. The Trustee's claims seek recovery of prepetition transfers pursuant to U.S. bankruptcy law. The amount of these claims has not been pleaded or determined as against the HSBC entities. In November 2016, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to certain of the Trustee's claims filed by numerous defendants, including a number of foreign affiliates of HSBC Bank USA. In September 2017, the Second Circuit granted the parties' request to review the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's decision. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal in November 2018 and a decision remains pending.

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 the HSBC entities. The Trustee's deadline for serving the claims has been extended through September 2019 for the U.K.-based defendants and November 2019 for all other defendants.

SPV Optimal SUS Ltd. ("SPV Optimal"), the purported assignee of Madoff Securities-invested Optimal Strategic U.S. Equity Ltd. filed an action against various HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank USA, in 2014 in New York state court asserting common law claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting conversion, aiding and abetting fraud and knowing participation in a breach of trust and seeks to recover damages lost to Madoff's fraud. (SPV OSUS Ltd. v. HSBC Bank plc, et al., Case No. 162259/2014). The HSBC defendants removed the case to the federal district court in New York in April 2018 and filed an amended motion to dismiss in September 2018 in response to the most recently amended complaint. In February 2019, SPV OSUS agreed to withdraw its action with prejudice against the HSBC entities.

Beginning in 2009, Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited (together "Fairfield"), funds whose assets were directly or indirectly invested with Madoff Securities, commenced multiple suits in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI") 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, seeking restitution of payments made in connection with share redemptions. The Fairfield liquidators voluntarily discontinued their actions against the HSBC defendants in BVI. In October 2016, the Fairfield liquidators filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaints in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In January 2017, defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss and oppose the Fairfield liquidators' motion. In December 2018, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court issued a decision that partially granted defendants' motion to dismiss claims by the Fairfield liquidators and granted a motion by the liquidators to file amended complaints.

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 proceedings have been brought and the number of different plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings. The timing and resolution of these matters remains uncertain. It is possible that any liabilities that may arise as a result could be significant. In any event, we consider that we have good defenses to these claims and will continue to defend them vigorously.

Supranational, Sovereign and Agency ("SSA") Bonds.

Beginning in November 2017, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Bank Canada, HSBC USA, HSBC North America and HSI, among others, were named as defendants in actions filed in the Superior Court and Federal Court of Ontario Province. The actions allege that the defendants conspired to manipulate the market for SSA bonds between January 2005 and December 2015 in violation of Canadian civil anti-trust law. The Superior Court action has now lapsed and will not proceed unless a motion to extend the time for service is successfully filed. The Federal Court action will proceed.

Mexican Government Bond Litigation HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America, HSBC Bank USA, HSI, HMUS, as well as non-U.S. HSBC affiliates, have been named as defendants, among others, in a putative class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2018 relating to the Mexican government bond ("MGB") market (Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al.). The action alleges that defendants conspired to fix MGB prices between January 2006 and April 2017 in violation of federal antitrust laws. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2018.

Benchmark Rate Litigation

USD LIBOR: HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA and/or HSBC Bank USA are among several defendants in lawsuits filed by the following plaintiffs seeking unspecified damages arising from the alleged artificial suppression of U.S. dollar LIBOR rates: (1) the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; (2) two mutual funds managed by Prudential Investment Portfolios; (3) the FDIC, in its role as receiver for several failed banks; and (4) the National Credit Union Administration Board, in its capacity as liquidator for several failed credit unions. The other defendants are members of the U.S. dollar LIBOR panel of banks and their affiliates. These actions are part of the U.S. dollar LIBOR Multi-District Litigation proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation). These matters are at early stages.

CDOR: HSBC Bank USA, HSBC, HSBC USA, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC North America, HSI and HSBC Canada have been named as defendants, among others, in a putative class action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who transacted in products tied to the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate ("CDOR") between August 2007 and December 2014. The complaint, encaptioned Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, et al. v Bank of Montreal, et al. (Case No. 18-cv-00342), alleges that the defendant banks conspired to suppress CDOR by making artificially lower submissions and entering into collusive transactions in the swaps market, thereby fixing the prices of CDOR-based derivatives for their collective financial benefit. The defendants are accused of illegal restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and Commodity Exchange Act. In July 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and we await a decision.

Intercontinental Exchange ("ICE") LIBOR: In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased over the counter instruments paying interest indexed to ICE LIBOR from a panel bank against HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America, HSBC USA and HSI, as well as other panel banks, alleging a conspiracy to depress USD ICE LIBOR from February 2014 (when ICE began administration of LIBOR) to the present. The complaint alleges, among other things, misconduct related to the suppression of the benchmark rate in violation of US antitrust and state law. (Putnam Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et al. (Case No. 19-cv-00439)).

Mortgage Securitization Matters

In addition to the repurchase risk described in Note 26, "Guarantee Arrangements, Pledged Assets and Repurchase Agreements," HSBC Bank USA has also been involved as a sponsor/seller of loans used to facilitate whole loan securitizations underwritten by HSI. During 2005-2007, HSBC Bank USA 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 $3.8 billion and $4.1 billion at December 31, 2018 and 2017, 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. We expect activity in this area to continue. As the industry's residential mortgage foreclosure issues continue, HSBC Bank USA has taken title to a 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."

In 2013, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC"), as trustee of HASCO 2007-NC1, filed a complaint in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming HSBC Bank USA as the sole defendant. The complaint alleges that DBNTC brought the action at the direction of certificateholders of the trust, seeking specific performance and/or damages of at least $508 million arising out of the alleged breach of various representations and warranties made by HSBC Bank USA in the applicable pooling and servicing agreement regarding certain characteristics of the mortgage loans contained in the trust. In 2014, the court granted HSBC Bank USA's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and with leave to replead. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which HSBC Bank USA moved to dismiss, and that motion was denied in November 2015. HSBC Bank USA appealed the decision. In December 2017, the appeals court issued a decision dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the dismissal of the action with the New York Court of Appeals, which was granted in September 2018.

As previously disclosed, in October 2018, HSBC North America reached a definitive agreement to resolve the DOJ's investigation of its legacy securitization, issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") issued between 2005 and 2007. Under the terms of the agreement, HSBC North America paid a $765 million civil monetary penalty to resolve the investigation, of which $492 million was paid by HUSI.

Mortgage Securitization Trust Litigation Since 2014, Plaintiff-Investors in 280 RMBS trusts (the "Trusts") have sued HSBC Bank USA, as mortgage securitization trustee, in a number of cases: BlackRock et al., Royal Park Investments SA/NV ("RPI"), Phoenix Light SF Limited, the National Credit Union Administration Board, as Liquidating Agent, Commerzbank AG, and Triaxx, IKB Bank AG ("IKB"), RMBS Recovery Holdings I, LLC, et al. ("Fir Tree"), VRS Holdings 2 LLC ("VRS") and Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company ("Reliance"). All the cases, with the exception of the IKB, Fir Tree, VRS and Reliance cases, have been deemed related and are assigned to the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The IKB, VRS and Reliance cases are pending in New York State court and Fir Tree filed cases in both New York and Virginia state courts. The lawsuits were brought derivatively on behalf of the Trusts, but some also seek class relief. The complaints allege generally that the Trusts have collectively sustained losses in collateral value of approximately $38 billion and seek to recover unspecified damages as a result of alleged breach of contract; breach of the federal Trust Indenture Act and New York's Streit Act; tort claims such as negligence, negligent misrepresentation, conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty. Similar lawsuits were filed simultaneously against other non-HSBC financial institutions that similarly served as mortgage securitization trustees. HSBC Bank USA's motions to dismiss these cases have largely been denied. In February 2018, the Virginia state court dismissed the Fir Tree case on procedural grounds, and Fir Tree has appealed the decision. The New York state court action is stayed pending the appeal. BlackRock's and RPI's motion for class certification has been denied, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a request for review of the decision. Discovery is underway in a number of the actions.

Shareholder Derivative Action In 2014, a shareholder of HSBC (who is not a shareholder of HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America or HSBC USA) filed a shareholder derivative action, captioned Michael Mason-Mahon v. Douglas J. Flint, et al. (New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 602052/2014), purportedly on behalf of HSBC, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America and HSBC USA (the "Nominal Corporate Defendants") in New York State Supreme Court against the directors, certain officers and certain former officers directors of those HSBC companies (the "Individual Defendants") alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the companies and caused a waste of corporate assets by allegedly permitting and/or causing the conduct underlying the five-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in February 2015. The Nominal Corporate Defendants moved to dismiss the original and amended complaints. Individual Defendants who have been served also responded to the complaints. In November 2015, the court granted the Nominal Corporate Defendants' motion to dismiss. In November 2018, the appellate court reversed the New York state court's dismissal of the action, which was based on plaintiff's standing to assert claims. The Nominal Corporate Defendants filed a motion for reargument or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals in December 2018. In February 2019, the Nominal Corporate Defendants and most of the Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in New York State Supreme Court, where the matter is pending.

Anti-Terrorism Act Cases

Charlotte Freeman, et al. v. HSBC Holdings plc, et al. In 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq between April 2004 and November 2011. The complaint was filed against HSBC, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, as well as other non-HSBC banks , and alleges that the defendants conspired to violate the federal Anti-Terrorism Act., (18 U.S.C. §2331 et seq.) ("ATA"), by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the U.S. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in March 2015. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints thereafter, which defendants moved to dismiss in September 2016. In July 2018, the magistrate judge issued ‎a recommendation that the court deny the defendants', including HSBC Bank USA's, motion to dismiss. In August 2018, defendants submitted objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to deny defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs submitted a response in October 2018. We await a decision from the district court.

In December 2018, a new action encaptioned Charlotte Freeman, et al. v. HSBC Holdings plc, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq between 2004 and 2011 ("Freeman II"). Freeman II is substantially similar to the original Freeman action and has been designated as related to that action but includes additional plaintiffs and claims not asserted in the original Freeman action. This action is at a very early stage.

Jeffrey Siegel, et al. v. HSBC Holdings plc, et al. In November 2015, an action was filed against HSBC, HSBC North America, HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited (among other HSBC entities that subsequently were dismissed from the action), as well as unaffiliated Al Rajhi Bank, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs, four U.S. nationals injured or killed in a 2005 terrorist attack on a hotel in Amman, Jordan and their families and heirs, allege violations of the ATA. The complaint includes one count against the HSBC defendants for violation of the ATA's civil provision, alleging a failure to enforce due diligence methods to prevent its financial services from being used to support the terrorist attack. In August 2017, the court granted HSBC's and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and transferred the action as to HSBC Bank USA and HSBC North America to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add allegations against HSBC. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in March 2018 against the remaining defendants, HSBC Bank USA and HSBC North America. In July 2018, ‎the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, and a decision remains pending.

Mary Zapata, et al. v. HSBC Holdings plc, et al. In February 2016, a group of plaintiffs claiming to be survivors and heirs of American nationals alleged to have been killed or injured in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division naming HSBC, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC México S.A., Institución de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero HSBC and Grupo Financiero HSBC, S.A. de C.V. as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the HSBC defendants violated the ATA by providing financial services to individuals and entities associated with the drug cartels. Plaintiffs seek unspecified, treble damages. In September and October 2017, the court dismissed claims against HSBC, HSBC Mexico S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero HSBC and Grupo Financiero HSBC, S.A. de C.V. for lack of personal jurisdiction while denying HSBC Bank USA's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs thereafter voluntarily dismissed the Texas action.

In November 2017, the plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York naming HSBC, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC México S.A., Institución de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero HSBC and Grupo Financiero HSBC, S.A. de C.V. as defendants. The complaint is substantially similar to the prior pending action alleging on behalf of a group of survivors and heirs of American nationals alleged to have been killed or injured in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels that the HSBC defendants violated the ATA by providing financial services to individuals and entities associated with the drug cartels. Defendants moved to dismiss the action in February 2018. We await a decision.

Timothy O'Sullivan, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al. In November 2017, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. The complaint was filed against HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, as well as other non-HSBC defendants, and alleges that the defendants conspired to violate the ATA by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the U.S. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in March 2018. We await a decision.

In December 2018, a new action encaptioned Timothy O'Sullivan, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq between 2003 and 2011 ("O’Sullivan II"). O’Sullivan II is substantially similar to the original O'Sullivan action and has been designated as related to that action but includes additional plaintiffs and claims not asserted in the original O'Sullivan action. This action is at a very early stage.

Joel Tavera, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al. In December 2018, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq between 2003 and 2011. The complaint was filed against HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, as well as other non-HSBC bank defendants, and alleges that the defendants conspired to violate the ATA by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the U.S. and that they aided and abetted primary violators of the ATA. This action is at a very early stage.

James Donaldson v. HSBC Holdings plc, et al. In December 2018, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq between 2005 and 2009. The complaint was filed against HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, as well as other non-HSBC bank defendants, and alleges that the defendants conspired to violate the ATA by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the U.S. and that they aided and abetted primary violators of the ATA. This action has been filed as related to the original Freeman action and is at a very early stage.

Kathleen Stephens v. HSBC Holdings plc, et al. In December 2018, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of U.S. persons killed and/or injured in Iraq in 2007. The complaint was filed against HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA, and HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, as well as other non-HSBC bank defendants, and alleges that the defendants conspired to violate the ATA by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the U.S. and that they aided and abetted primary violators of the ATA. This action has been filed as related to the newly filed Freeman action and is at a very early stage.

Rigoberto Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.

This putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in March 2018 against HSBC Bank USA and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation. Plaintiffs purport to represent those that invested in a Ponzi scheme allegedly orchestrated by Phil Ming Xu and certain companies he allegedly controlled, such as WCM777. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is alleged to have accepted wire transfers from plaintiffs to WCM777 from investors in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme. HSBC Bank USA is alleged to have acted as Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation's correspondent bank for certain wire transfers to WCM777. The purported class period is from June 2013 to May 2014. Plaintiffs allege claims for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting conversion. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of $37 million plus punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

In August 2018, the HSBC defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiffs requested and received leave from the court to file an amended complaint, which was filed in October 2018. The HSBC defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in December 2018. We await a decision.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

In March 2017, plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Ahmed and Monteleone v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association (Case No. 5:16-cv-02057). The consolidated action alleges that the defendants contacted plaintiffs, or the members of the class that they seek to represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without prior express consent or despite revocation of prior consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 for each violation. HSBC Mortgage Corporation responded to the complaint, and discovery proceeded. In December 2018, the parties agreed to settle the action. Plaintiffs filed for court approval of the settlement in January 2019.

Other Regulatory and Law Enforcement Investigations

We continue to cooperate in ongoing investigations by the DOJ and the Internal Revenue Service regarding whether certain HSBC Group companies and employees acted appropriately in relation to certain customers who had U.S. tax reporting requirements.

In 2014, the Argentine tax authority filed a complaint against several individuals, including some current and former HSBC employees, alleging tax evasion and an unlawful tax association between HSBC Private Bank Suisse SA, HSBC Bank Argentina and HSBC Bank USA and certain HSBC officers, which allegedly enabled HSBC customers to evade Argentine tax obligations.

We and certain other HSBC entities have received requests for information from various regulatory or law enforcement authorities around the world concerning persons and entities believed to be linked to Mossack Fonseca & Co, a service provider of personal investment companies. HSBC is cooperating with the relevant authorities.

Based on the facts currently known, in respect of each of the above 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.