XML 26 R40.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Collateral, Commitments and Contingent Liabilities
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Guarantee Arrangements and Collateral, Commitments and Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]  
Collateral, Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

30. Collateral, Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

 

Pledged Assets  The following table presents pledged assets included in the consolidated balance sheet.

 

                 
At December 31,   2011     2010  
    (in millions)  

Interest bearing deposits with banks

   $ 4,426     $ 1,463  

Trading assets (1)

     1,640       319  

Securities available- for-sale (2)

     23,347       19,765  

Securities held-to-maturity

     476       1,004  

Loans(3)

    2,113       2,691  

Other assets (4)

     3,688       5,598  
   

 

 

    

 

 

  

Total

   $ 35,690     $ 30,840  
   

 

 

    

 

 

  

 

 

(1) 

Trading assets are primarily pledged against liabilities associated with consolidated variable interest entities.

 

(2) 

Securities available-for-sale are primarily pledged against public fund deposits and various short-term and long term borrowings, as well as providing capacity for potential secured borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank.

 

(3) 

Loans are primarily residential mortgage loans pledged against long-term borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank. At December 31, 2010, loans also include private label and credit card receivables pledged against long-term secured borrowings and the loans of a consolidated commercial paper conduit that collateralize the conduit’s outstanding commercial paper.

 

(4) 

Other assets represent cash on deposit with non-banks related to derivative collateral support agreements.

Debt securities pledged as collateral that can be sold or repledged by the secured party continue to be reported on the consolidated balance sheet. The fair value of securities available-for-sale that can be sold or repledged was $14 billion and $11.4 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The fair value of collateral we accepted but not reported on the consolidated balance sheet that can be sold or repledged was $11.2 billion and $14.5 billion at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. This collateral was obtained under security resale agreements. Of this collateral, $6.5 billion and $2.1 billion has been sold or repledged as collateral under repurchase agreements or to cover short sales at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Lease Obligations  We are obligated under a number of noncancellable leases for premises and equipment. Certain leases contain renewal options and escalation clauses. Office space leases generally require us to pay certain operating expenses. Net rental expense under operating leases was $148 million in 2011, $144 million in 2010 and $143 million in 2009.

We have lease obligations on certain office space which has been subleased through the end of the lease period. Under these agreements, the sublessee has assumed future rental obligations on the lease.

Future net minimum lease commitments under noncancellable operating lease arrangements were as follows:

 

                         
Year Ending December 31,  

Minimum

Rental

Payments

    

Minimum

Sublease

Income

     Net  
    (in millions)  

2012

   $ 158     $ (4 )    $ 154  

2013

     154       (4 )      150  

2014

     148       (3 )      145  

2015

     131       (3 )      128  

2016

     107       (2 )      105  

Thereafter

     342       (3 )      339  
   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

  

Net minimum lease commitments

   $ 1,040     $ (19 )    $ 1,021  
   

 

 

    

 

 

    

 

 

  

 

Securitization Activity  In addition to the repurchase risk described in Note 28, “Guarantee Arrangements,” we have also been involved as a sponsor/seller of loans used to facilitate whole loan securitizations underwritten by our affiliate, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. (“HSI”). In this regard, we began acquiring residential mortgage loans beginning in 2005 which were warehoused on our balance sheet with the intent of selling them to HSI to facilitate HSI’s whole loan securitization program which was discontinued in the second half of 2007. During 2005-2007, we purchased and sold $24 billion of such loans to HSI which were subsequently securitized and sold by HSI to third parties. Based on the specifics of these transactions, the obligation to repurchase loans in the event of a breach of loan level representations and warranties resides predominantly with the organization that originated the loan. While certain of these originators are or may become financially impaired and, therefore, unable to fulfill their repurchase obligations, we do not believe we have significant exposure for repurchases on these loans.

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.

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 (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other banks. These 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 have been 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”). A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. 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 “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 Agreements also cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720. While we continue to believe that we have substantial meritorious defenses to the claims in this action, the parties are engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District Court. Based on progress to date in mediation, we increased our litigation reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011 to an amount equal to our estimated portion of a potential settlement of this matter.

Account Overdraft Litigation  In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit accounts in high-to-low order. Levin asserts claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute. The plaintiffs dismissed the Federal court action after the case was transferred to the multi-district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed the case in New York state court on March 1, 2011. The action, captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and violations on behalf of a New York class, including breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York deceptive acts and practices statute. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2011, oral argument was held in November 2011, and we are currently awaiting the court’s decision. At this time we are unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might arise as a result of this action and will defend the claims vigorously.

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 included four 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 decision, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement. The Thema plaintiff contests HSBC’s right to terminate. Plaintiffs in all three actions have filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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 District Court issued an order that allowed the trustee to immediately appeal that ruling and the trustee has filed a notice of appeal. 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. In September 2011, certain non-HSBC defendants moved again to withdraw the case from the Bankruptcy Court. Those withdrawal motions are currently pending before the District Court. 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.

Between October 2009 and July 2011, Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma 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, 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 actions in the United States are currently stayed in the Bankruptcy Court while plaintiffs pursue an appeal of a decision that reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of defendants’ motions to remand or abstain and pending developments in the 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.

Greenwich Sentry LP v. HSBC USA Inc. (Del. Ch. No. 6829) was filed in September 2011 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint seeks the return of specified redemption payments made to HSBC USA as a limited partner in Greenwich Sentry LP, a fund whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment, mistaken payment, and constructive trust. HSBC USA was served with a copy of the complaint in December 2011 and expects to file a response in or about March 2012.

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.

Knox Family Trust Litigation.  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is the defendant in seven separate proceedings collectively described as Matter of Knox (N.Y. Surrogate’s Court, Erie County, File Nos. DO-0659, DO-0663, DO-0664, DO-0665, DO-0666, 1996-2486/B, and 1996-2486/D), concerning seven trusts for which HSBC Bank USA served as trustee that were established by Seymour Knox II and his descendants for various members of the Knox family. In these proceedings, the beneficiaries of the various trusts objected to HSBC Bank USA’s final accountings and claimed that HSBC Bank USA mismanaged certain assets and investments. In November 2010, the court awarded the plaintiffs in the seven proceedings damages totaling approximately $26 million plus interest and attorneys’ fees to be determined. In May 2011, the court entered final judgments totaling approximately $25 million in two of the seven proceedings. HSBC Bank USA appealed the judgments and secured the judgments in order to suspend execution of the judgments while the appeals are ongoing by depositing cash in the amount of the judgments in an interest-bearing escrow account. In May 2011, HSBC Bank USA agreed to settle three of the other proceedings for an immaterial amount. HSBC Bank USA also filed appeals of the two other proceedings. In August 2011, HSBC Bank USA agreed in principle to settle one proceeding on appeal for an immaterial amount. Final judgments were entered on the remaining proceedings and we have filed appeals, which are currently pending.

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 are committed to full compliance with the terms of the Servicing Consent Orders, as described in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. 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 require an independent review of foreclosures pending or completed between January 2009 and December 2010 (the “Foreclosure Review Period”) to determine if any borrower was financially injured as a result of an error in the foreclosure process. Consistent with the industry, and as required by the Servicing Consent Orders, an independent consultant has been retained to conduct that review, and remediation, including restitution, may be required if a borrower is found to have been financially injured as a result of servicer errors. In conjunction with the foreclosure review, a communication and outreach plan has been developed and implemented to contact borrowers with foreclosures pending or completed during the Foreclosure Review Period. We will conduct the outreach efforts in collaboration with other mortgage loan servicers and independent consultants in order to present a uniform, coherent and user-friendly complaint process. Written communications have been sent to borrowers who were subject to foreclosure proceedings during the Foreclosure Review Period notifying them of the foreclosure complaint review process and providing them with forms that can be used to request a review of their foreclosure proceeding. The outreach plan currently includes a staggered mailing to borrowers, which began on November 1, and industry media advertising, which began in January 2012. We expect the costs associated with the Servicing Consent Orders, including the foreclosure review, customer outreach plan and complaint process and any resulting remediation, will result in significant increases in our operating expenses in future periods.

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 Department of Justice and 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. The Federal Reserve has indicated in a press release that it believes monetary penalties are appropriate for the enforcement actions and that it plans to announce such penalties. We may also see an increase in private litigation concerning foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices.

On February 9, 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. HSBC North America, HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Bank USA have had preliminary discussions with U.S. bank regulators and other governmental agencies regarding a potential resolution, although the timing of any settlement is not presently known. Based on discussions to date, an accrual was determined based on the total projected impact at HSBC North America associated with a proposed settlement of this matter. We have recorded an accrual of $38 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 which reflects 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, including the imposition of civil money penalties, criminal fines or other sanctions. In addition, such a settlement would not preclude private litigation concerning these practices.

Anti-Money Laundering, Bank Secrecy Act, Office of Foreign Assets Control and Other Compliance Matters  In October 2010, HSBC Bank USA has also 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 for an effective compliance risk management program across our U.S. businesses, including BSA and Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) compliance. Steps continue to be taken to address the requirements of the AML/BSA Consent Orders to ensure compliance, and that effective policies and procedures are maintained.

The AML/BSA Consent Orders do not preclude additional enforcement actions against HSBC Bank USA or HSBC North America by bank regulatory or law enforcement agencies, including the imposition of civil money penalties, criminal fines and other sanctions relating to activities that are the subject of the AML/BSA Consent Orders. We continue to cooperate in ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve and the OCC in connection with AML/BSA compliance, including cross-border transactions involving our remittance and our former bulk cash businesses.

We continue to cooperate in ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the Federal Reserve and the OCC regarding historical transactions involving Iranian parties and other parties subject to OFAC economic sanctions.

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. While the summons was voluntarily withdrawn in August 2011, we have cooperated fully by providing responsive documents in our possession in the U.S. to the IRS, and engaging in efforts to resolve these matters.

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

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.

We continue to cooperate with an investigation by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations related to AML/BSA compliance, OFAC sanctions and compliance with U.S. tax and securities laws.

In each of these regulatory and law enforcement matters, we have received Grand Jury subpoenas or other requests for information from governmental and other agencies, and are cooperating fully and engaging in efforts to resolve these matters. It is likely that there will be some form of formal enforcement action, which may be criminal or civil in nature, in respect of some or all of the ongoing investigations. Investigations of several other financial institutions in recent years for breaches of BSA, AML and OFAC requirements have resulted in settlements. Some of those settlements involved the filing of criminal charges, in some cases including agreements to defer prosecution of these charges, and the imposition of fines and penalties. Some of those fines and penalties have been significant depending upon the individual circumstances of each action. The investigations are ongoing. Based on the facts currently known, we are unable at this time to determine the terms on which the 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 material to our financial statements.

Mortgage Securitization Activity In addition to the repurchase risk described in Note 28, “Guarantee Arrangements,” we have also been involved as a sponsor/seller of loans used to facilitate whole loan securitizations underwritten by our affiliate, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. (“HSI”). In this regard, beginning in 2005 we began acquiring residential mortgage loans, substantially all of which were originated by non-HSBC entities, that were warehoused on our balance sheet with the intent of selling them to HSI to facilitate HSI’s whole loan securitization program which was discontinued in the second half of 2007. During 2005-2007, we purchased and sold $24 billion of such loans to HSI which were subsequently securitized and sold by HSI to third parties. The outstanding principal balance on these loans was approximately $8.5 billion and $10.0 billion at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Based on the specifics of these transactions, the obligation to repurchase loans in the event of a breach of loan level representations and warranties resides predominantly with the organization that originated the loan. Certain of these originators, however, are or may become financially impaired and, therefore, unable to fulfill their repurchase obligations.

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, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., 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 $1.9 billion at December 31, 2011. 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 securities laws and state statutory and common law 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, have been transferred to a single judge, who has directed the defendant in the first-filed matter, UBS, to file a motion to dismiss. The District Court’s ruling on that motion will form the basis for rulings on the other matters, including the action filed against HSBC Bank USA and our affiliates. This action is at a very early stage. At this time we are unable to reasonably estimate the liability, if any, that might arise as a result of this action.

 

On January 31, 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 HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. The summons alleges that DZ Bank purchased $122.4 million in RMBS from the HSBC defendants and has sustained unspecified damages as a result of material misrepresentations and omissions contained in the offering documents, which DZ Bank did not know of until recently. DZ Bank now has 120 days to serve the HSBC entities with a complaint.

We have 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. 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, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., 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 this level of focus will continue and, potentially, intensify, so long as the U.S. real estate markets continue to be distressed. As a result, we may be subject to additional 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. We are unable to reasonably estimate the financial effect of any action or litigation relating to these matters. As situations develop, it is possible that any related claims could be significant.