Litigation and Regulatory Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Litigation and Regulatory Matters	*21. 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. The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District Court. In July 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc. and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the class litigations consolidated into MDL 1720. On October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs became effective. In the fourth quarter of 2011, we increased our litigation reserves to an amount equal to our estimated portion of the settlement of this matter. In connection with the execution of the MOU, we increased our litigation reserves by an immaterial amount in anticipation of a related short-term reduction in interchange fees. 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, N.A. 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. In June 2012, the court denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss, granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint with regard to plaintiffs’ claims for conversion and unjust enrichment. On October 11, 2012, the parties attended a hearing before the Court at which time plaintiff’s counsel sought to withdraw as counsel for the named plaintiff in the matter and to amend the complaint to, among other things, substitute a new named plaintiff. The Court granted the motion to amend, but found the motion to withdraw procedurally defective. The Court will permit plaintiff’s counsel to re-file a motion to withdraw, and the parties await further proceedings in the case. Lender-Placed Insurance Matters Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard insurance policy 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. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in 2012. 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. Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against us and our subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074);Maxwell et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 12-CV-1699); West et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687). These actions relate primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, 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. 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 these appeals was completed in September 2012, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled. 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 has been scheduled for November 2012. 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 is considering the motions as to other issues. Briefing on the merits of the withdrawn issues is ongoing. 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, 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 British Virgin Islands actions have been dismissed, and those dismissals affirmed on appeal. The U.S. actions are stayed 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. 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. In May 2012, the Court of Chancery granted an unopposed motion by the Madoff Securities trustee to substitute itself for Greenwich Sentry LP as plaintiff in this action. HSBC USA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in June 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 (DO-0659 and 1996-2486/B). 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 (DO-0664, DO-0665 and DO-0666) 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 (1996-2486/B) for an immaterial amount. On June 19, 2012 the N.Y. Appellate Division, 4th Department issued rulings on HSBC Bank USA’s three pending appeals modifying the Surrogate Court’s decisions by vacating all its determinations of liability (except for an appellate finding in DO-0659 to the extent that HSBC Bank USA held certain stock in F.W. Woolworth Co. after March 1, 1995, which leaves potential liability in an immaterial amount), and as modified, affirming them. The Appellate Division then remitted the three matters to the Surrogate Court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs have thirty days within which to seek permission to appeal. Prior to the Appellate Division’s decision, the parties largely had agreed in principle to a consensual resolution of the remaining issues in DO-0659, and the Surrogate Court has approved a resolution of the claims for an immaterial amount. Several beneficiaries have attempted to pursue further appeals of the Appellate Division’s decision, which HSBC Bank USA views as procedurally and substantively without merit. In September 2012, those beneficiaries’ motions for reargument or leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals were denied by the Appellate Division. *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 initially 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 (the “Foreclosure Review”) 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, 2011, industry media advertising, which began in January 2012 and a website at which a borrower can request a review. In June 2012, the Federal Reserve and the OCC released a financial remediation framework for use by the independent consultants to recommend remediation for financial injury identified during the Foreclosure Review. Pursuant to this framework, remediation available to a borrower who is found to have been financially injured as a result of servicer errors could include suspension of a pending foreclosure, loan modification, or a lump sum payment ranging from $500 to $125,000 plus equity in the most egregious cases. Any borrower who receives remediation will not be precluded from pursuing litigation concerning foreclosure or other mortgage servicing practices. We expect the costs associated with the Servicing Consent Orders, including the Foreclosure Review, customer outreach plan and complaint process will continue to result in significant increases in our operating expenses in future periods. Any resulting remediation could result in further increased costs. 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. 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 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 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 for 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 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 U.S. 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, the OCC and the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in connection with AML/BSA compliance, including cross-border transactions involving our cash handling business in Mexico and banknotes business in the U.S. 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. 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. In July 2012, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing and released a report that was critical of, among other things, HSBC’s AML/BSA compliance and compliance with OFAC sanctions. In each of these regulatory and law enforcement matters, we have received Grand Jury subpoenas or other requests for information from U.S. Government or other agencies, and are cooperating fully and engaging in efforts to resolve matters through ongoing discussions with relevant authorities regarding a possible resolution, including potential fines, penalties and monetary forfeitures, although no agreement has been reached with respect to the imposition of fines, penalties and monetary forfeitures or the amounts that ultimately may have to be paid. The resolution of at least some of these matters is likely to involve the filing of corporate criminal as well as civil charges and the imposition of significant fines, penalties and/or monetary forfeitures. The prosecution of corporate criminal charges in these types of cases has most often been deferred through an agreement with the relevant authorities; however, the U.S. authorities have substantial discretion, and prior settlements can provide no assurance as to how the U.S. authorities will proceed in these matters. Fines, penalties and/or monetary forfeitures are assessed separately by each agency investigating these matters, and the amounts paid to one agency may or may not offset amounts payable to other agencies. It is not practicable at this time for us to know the terms on which a resolution of the ongoing investigations could be achieved or the form or timing of any such resolution. Based on the facts currently known, including our ongoing discussions with relevant authorities, we have recorded an accrual of $1.5 billion. There is a high degree of uncertainty in making this estimate and it is reasonably possible that the amounts when finally determined could be higher, possibly significantly higher. Other Regulatory and Law Enforcement Investigations. 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, 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. 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. Mortgage Securitization Activity In addition to the repurchase risk described in Note 20, “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. In this regard, beginning in 2005 we began acquiring residential mortgage loans, the vast majority 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 $7.7 billion and $8.5 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, 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, 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 $1.8 billion at September 30, 2012. 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, were transferred to a single judge, who directed the defendant in the first-filed matter, UBS, to file a motion to dismiss. In May 4, 2012, the District Court filed its decision on UBS’ motion 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 will form the basis for rulings on the other matters, including the action filed against HSBC Bank USA and our affiliates. Subsequently, UBS sought leave to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on certain issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The District Court and the Court of Appeals granted the request for leave to appeal, and this appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals. 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. 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 consolidated complaint seeks recovery on fraud and other common law theories. In February 2012, Sealink Funding Ltd. (“Sealink”) filed a summons with notice in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming as defendants 49 entities, including HSBC North America, HSBC USA, HSBC Markets (USA) Inc. and HSI. The summons alleges that Sealink purchased $948.8 million in RMBS from the defendants and has sustained unspecified damages as a result of material misrepresentations and omissions contained in the offering documents. The claims against the HSBC entities, who are named as underwriters of the related RMBS, are for (i) aiding and abetting fraud, (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) breach of contract; and (iv) mutual mistake. Sealink has 120 days to serve the defendants with a complaint. In May 2012, Sealink filed a notice of discontinuance as to 43 of the defendants, including the HSBC entities. 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 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 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. 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.

21. 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.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the District Court. In July 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc. and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the class litigations consolidated into MDL 1720. On October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs became effective. In the fourth quarter of 2011, we increased our litigation reserves to an amount equal to our estimated portion of the settlement of this matter. In connection with the execution of the MOU, we increased our litigation reserves by an immaterial amount in anticipation of a related short-term reduction in interchange fees.

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, N.A. 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. In June 2012, the court denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss, granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint with regard to plaintiffs’ claims for conversion and unjust enrichment. On October 11, 2012, the parties attended a hearing before the Court at which time plaintiff’s counsel sought to withdraw as counsel for the named plaintiff in the matter and to amend the complaint to, among other things, substitute a new named plaintiff. The Court granted the motion to amend, but found the motion to withdraw procedurally defective. The Court will permit plaintiff’s counsel to re-file a motion to withdraw, and the parties await further proceedings in the case.

Lender-Placed Insurance Matters Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard insurance policy 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. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in 2012. 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.

Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against us and our subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074);Maxwell et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 12-CV-1699); West et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687). These actions relate primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, 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.

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 these appeals was completed in September 2012, and oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

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 has been scheduled for November 2012. 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 is considering the motions as to other issues. Briefing on the merits of the withdrawn issues is ongoing. 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, 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 British Virgin Islands actions have been dismissed, and those dismissals affirmed on appeal. The U.S. actions are stayed 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.

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. In May 2012, the Court of Chancery granted an unopposed motion by the Madoff Securities trustee to substitute itself for Greenwich Sentry LP as plaintiff in this action. HSBC USA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in June 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 (DO-0659 and 1996-2486/B). 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 (DO-0664, DO-0665 and DO-0666) 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 (1996-2486/B) for an immaterial amount. On June 19, 2012 the N.Y. Appellate Division, 4th Department issued rulings on HSBC Bank USA’s three pending appeals modifying the Surrogate Court’s decisions by vacating all its determinations of liability (except for an appellate finding in DO-0659 to the extent that HSBC Bank USA held certain stock in F.W. Woolworth Co. after March 1, 1995, which leaves potential liability in an immaterial amount), and as modified, affirming them. The Appellate Division then remitted the three matters to the Surrogate Court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs have thirty days within which to seek permission to appeal. Prior to the Appellate Division’s decision, the parties largely had agreed in principle to a consensual resolution of the remaining issues in DO-0659, and the Surrogate Court has approved a resolution of the claims for an immaterial amount. Several beneficiaries have attempted to pursue further appeals of the Appellate Division’s decision, which HSBC Bank USA views as procedurally and substantively without merit. In September 2012, those beneficiaries’ motions for reargument or leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals were denied by the Appellate Division.

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 initially 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 (the “Foreclosure Review”) 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, 2011, industry media advertising, which began in January 2012 and a website at which a borrower can request a review. In June 2012, the Federal Reserve and the OCC released a financial remediation framework for use by the independent consultants to recommend remediation for financial injury identified during the Foreclosure Review. Pursuant to this framework, remediation available to a borrower who is found to have been financially injured as a result of servicer errors could include suspension of a pending foreclosure, loan modification, or a lump sum payment ranging from $500 to $125,000 plus equity in the most egregious cases. Any borrower who receives remediation will not be precluded from pursuing litigation concerning foreclosure or other mortgage servicing practices. We expect the costs associated with the Servicing Consent Orders, including the Foreclosure Review, customer outreach plan and complaint process will continue to result in significant increases in our operating expenses in future periods. Any resulting remediation could result in further increased costs.

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. 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 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 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 for 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 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 U.S. 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, the OCC and the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network in connection with AML/BSA compliance, including cross-border transactions involving our cash handling business in Mexico and banknotes business in the U.S.

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. 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.

In July 2012, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a hearing and released a report that was critical of, among other things, HSBC’s AML/BSA compliance and compliance with OFAC sanctions.

In each of these regulatory and law enforcement matters, we have received Grand Jury subpoenas or other requests for information from U.S. Government or other agencies, and are cooperating fully and engaging in efforts to resolve matters through ongoing discussions with relevant authorities regarding a possible resolution, including potential fines, penalties and monetary forfeitures, although no agreement has been reached with respect to the imposition of fines, penalties and monetary forfeitures or the amounts that ultimately may have to be paid. The resolution of at least some of these matters is likely to involve the filing of corporate criminal as well as civil charges and the imposition of significant fines, penalties and/or monetary forfeitures. The prosecution of corporate criminal charges in these types of cases has most often been deferred through an agreement with the relevant authorities; however, the U.S. authorities have substantial discretion, and prior settlements can provide no assurance as to how the U.S. authorities will proceed in these matters. Fines, penalties and/or monetary forfeitures are assessed separately by each agency investigating these matters, and the amounts paid to one agency may or may not offset amounts payable to other agencies. It is not practicable at this time for us to know the terms on which a resolution of the ongoing investigations could be achieved or the form or timing of any such resolution. Based on the facts currently known, including our ongoing discussions with relevant authorities, we have recorded an accrual of $1.5 billion. There is a high degree of uncertainty in making this estimate and it is reasonably possible that the amounts when finally determined could be higher, possibly significantly higher.

Other Regulatory and Law Enforcement Investigations. 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, 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.

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.

Mortgage Securitization Activity In addition to the repurchase risk described in Note 20, “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. In this regard, beginning in 2005 we began acquiring residential mortgage loans, the vast majority 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 $7.7 billion and $8.5 billion at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, 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, 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 $1.8 billion at September 30, 2012. 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, were transferred to a single judge, who directed the defendant in the first-filed matter, UBS, to file a motion to dismiss. In May 4, 2012, the District Court filed its decision on UBS’ motion 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 will form the basis for rulings on the other matters, including the action filed against HSBC Bank USA and our affiliates. Subsequently, UBS sought leave to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on certain issues raised in the motion to dismiss. The District Court and the Court of Appeals granted the request for leave to appeal, and this appeal is pending before the Court of Appeals. 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.

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 consolidated complaint seeks recovery on fraud and other common law theories.

In February 2012, Sealink Funding Ltd. (“Sealink”) filed a summons with notice in New York County Supreme Court, State of New York, naming as defendants 49 entities, including HSBC North America, HSBC USA, HSBC Markets (USA) Inc. and HSI. The summons alleges that Sealink purchased $948.8 million in RMBS from the defendants and has sustained unspecified damages as a result of material misrepresentations and omissions contained in the offering documents. The claims against the HSBC entities, who are named as underwriters of the related RMBS, are for (i) aiding and abetting fraud, (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) breach of contract; and (iv) mutual mistake. Sealink has 120 days to serve the defendants with a complaint. In May 2012, Sealink filed a notice of discontinuance as to 43 of the defendants, including the HSBC entities.

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 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 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. 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.