Contingent Liabilities and Guarantees

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Contingent Liabilities and Guarantees [Abstract]

Contingent Liabilities and Guarantees

12.  Contingent Liabilities and Guarantees

Legal Proceedings

The following provides information on material developments in our legal proceedings during the quarter. Additional information on our legal proceedings is available in our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K, Note 16 (“Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Guarantees”) under the heading “Legal Proceedings” on pages 175-177, and in our Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, Note 12 (“Contingent Liabilities and Guarantees”) under the heading “Legal Proceedings” on page 60.

Austin Related Claims.

Acquisition-related claim. KeyCorp was named as a defendant in an action filed in June 2011 by the former owners of Austin in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This acquisition-related lawsuit concerned an alleged breach of contract by KeyCorp under the purchase and sale agreement between the plaintiffs and KeyCorp, which related to our original purchase of Austin. The parties settled and, on April 30, 2012, the court entered a stipulation of dismissal of the litigation. The settlement amount was immaterial and paid out of existing reserves.

Monday litigation. As previously reported, KeyCorp and certain current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in the shareholder derivative lawsuit captioned Warren Monday, et al., v. Henry L. Meyer III, et al. (“Monday”), filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As previously reported, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal after the court dismissed the lawsuit in late 2011. While the matter was pending on appeal, the parties agreed to a settlement, subject to the approval of the court. On June 20, 2012, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice to shareholders. The “Notice of Proposed Settlement in Monday v. Meyer Shareholder Derivative Action,” which sets forth the terms of the proposed settlement, is available at www.key.com/ir by clicking on “corporate governance.” A fairness hearing is scheduled for August 6, 2012.

Taylor and Metyk litigation. As previously reported, KeyCorp and certain of its directors and employees were named as defendants in two putative class actions filed in Ohio federal court styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., and Wildes v. KeyCorp, et al. The plaintiffs in these cases sought to represent a class of all participants in our 401(k) Savings Plan and alleged that the defendants in the lawsuit breached fiduciary duties owed to them under ERISA. These cases were substantively consolidated with each other and proceeded styled Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al. (“Taylor”). Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint continued to name certain employees as defendants but no longer named any outside directors. On May 25, 2012, the federal court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision dismissing Taylor for lack of standing. The court of appeals did not address Key’s cross-appeal.

Following the trial court’s dismissal of Taylor on August 12, 2010, two putative class actions with similar allegations and causes of action were filed, on September 21, 2010, in Ohio federal court. These two putative class action lawsuits were substantively consolidated with each other and are proceeding styled Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al. (“Metyk”). Metyk had been stayed due to the pendency of the appeals in Taylor. On June 25, 2012, the court lifted the stay. We strongly disagree with the allegations asserted against us and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Other litigation. In the ordinary course of business, we are subject to various other litigation, investigations and administrative proceedings. These other matters may involve claims for substantial monetary relief. Due to the complex nature of these various other matters, it may be years before some matters are resolved. While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate resolution or range of financial liability, based on information presently known to us, we do not believe there is any other matter to which we are a party, or involving any of our properties that, individually or in the aggregate, would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the inherent uncertainty in legal proceedings there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution will not exceed established reserves. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter, or a combination of matters, may be material to our results of operation for a particular period, depending upon the size of the loss or our income for that particular period.

Guarantees

We are a guarantor in various agreements with third parties. The following table shows the types of guarantees that we had outstanding at June 30, 2012. Information pertaining to the basis for determining the liabilities recorded in connection with these guarantees is included in Note 1 (“Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”) under the heading “Guarantees” on page 177 of our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

June 30, 2012 in millions	Maximum Potential  Undiscounted  Future Payments		Liability  Recorded
Financial guarantees:
Standby letters of credit	$	10,137	$	52
Recourse agreement with FNMA		973		9
Return guarantee agreement with LIHTC investors		55		55
Written put options (a)		1,993		60
Default guarantees		3		1
Total	$	13,161	$	177

(a) The maximum potential undiscounted future payments represent notional amounts of derivatives qualifying as guarantees.

We determine the payment/performance risk associated with each type of guarantee described below based on the probability that we could be required to make the maximum potential undiscounted future payments shown in the preceding table. We use a scale of low (0-30% probability of payment), moderate (31-70% probability of payment) or high (71-100% probability of payment) to assess the payment/performance risk, and have determined that the payment/performance risk associated with each type of guarantee outstanding at June 30, 2012, is low.

Standby letters of credit. KeyBank issues standby letters of credit to address clients’ financing needs. These instruments obligate us to pay a specified third party when a client fails to repay an outstanding loan or debt instrument or fails to perform some contractual nonfinancial obligation. Any amounts drawn under standby letters of credit are treated as loans to the client; they bear interest (generally at variable rates) and pose the same credit risk to us as a loan. At June 30, 2012, our standby letters of credit had a remaining weighted-average life of 3.0 years, with remaining actual lives ranging from less than one year to as many as eleven years.

Recourse agreement with FNMA. We participate as a lender in the FNMA Delegated Underwriting and Servicing program. FNMA delegates responsibility for originating, underwriting, and servicing mortgages, and we assume a limited portion of the risk of loss during the remaining term on each commercial mortgage loan that we sell to FNMA. We maintain a reserve for such potential losses in an amount that we believe approximates the fair value of our liability. At June 30, 2012, the outstanding commercial mortgage loans in this program had a weighted-average remaining term of six years, and the unpaid principal balance outstanding of loans sold by us as a participant was $3.0 billion. As shown in the preceding table, the maximum potential amount of undiscounted future payments that we could be required to make under this program is equal to approximately one-third of the principal balance of loans outstanding at June 30, 2012. If we are required to make a payment, we would have an interest in the collateral underlying the related commercial mortgage loan; any loss we incur could be offset by the amount of any recovery from the collateral.

Return guarantee agreement with LIHTC investors. KAHC, a subsidiary of KeyBank, offered limited partnership interests to qualified investors. Partnerships formed by KAHC invested in low-income residential rental properties that qualify for federal low income housing tax credits under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. In certain partnerships, investors paid a fee to KAHC for a guaranteed return that is based on the financial performance of the property and the property’s confirmed LIHTC status throughout a fifteen-year compliance period. Typically, KAHC fulfills these guaranteed returns by distributing tax credits and deductions associated with the specific properties. If KAHC defaults on its obligation to provide the guaranteed return, KeyBank is obligated to make any necessary payments to investors. No recourse or collateral is available to offset our guarantee obligation other than the underlying income stream from the properties and the residual value of the operating partnership interests.

As shown in the previous table, KAHC maintained a reserve in the amount of $55 million at June 30, 2012, which we believe will be sufficient to cover estimated future obligations under the guarantees. The maximum exposure to loss reflected in the table represents undiscounted future payments due to investors for the return on and of their investments. A majority of these payments are due and payable within the next twelve months.

These guarantees have expiration dates that extend through 2018, but KAHC has not formed any new partnerships under this program since October 2003. Additional information regarding these partnerships is included in Note 9 (“Variable Interest Entities”).

Written put options. In the ordinary course of business, we “write” interest rate caps and floors for commercial loan clients that have variable and fixed rate loans, respectively, with us and wish to mitigate their exposure to changes in interest rates. At June 30, 2012, our written put options had an average life of 1.8 years. These instruments are considered to be guarantees, as we are required to make payments to the counterparty (the commercial loan client) based on changes in an underlying variable that is related to an asset, a liability, or an equity security that the client holds (i.e., the commercial loan client). We are obligated to pay the client if the applicable benchmark interest rate is above or below a specified level (known as the “strike rate”). These written put options are accounted for as derivatives at fair value, as further discussed in Note 7 (“Derivatives and Hedging Activities”). We typically mitigate our potential future payment obligations by entering into offsetting positions with third parties.

Written put options where the counterparty is a broker-dealer or bank are accounted for as derivatives at fair value but are not considered guarantees since these counterparties typically do not hold the underlying instruments. In addition, we are a purchaser and seller of credit derivatives, which are further discussed in Note 7.

Default guarantees. Some lines of business participate in guarantees that obligate us to perform if the debtor (typically a client) fails to satisfy all of its payment obligations to third parties. We generally undertake these guarantees for one of two possible reasons: either the risk profile of the debtor should provide an investment return, or we are supporting our underlying investment in the debtor. The terms of these default guarantees range from less than one year to as many as seven years; some default guarantees do not have a contractual end date. Although no collateral is held, we would receive a pro rata share should the third party collect some or all of the amounts due from the debtor.

Other Off-Balance Sheet Risk

Other off-balance sheet risk stems from financial instruments that do not meet the definition of a guarantee as specified in the applicable accounting guidance, and from other relationships.

Liquidity facilities that support asset-backed commercial paper conduits. At June 30, 2012, we did not have any liquidity facilities remaining outstanding with any unconsolidated third-party commercial paper conduit. The liquidity facility, which expired during the second quarter of 2012, obligated us to provide aggregate funding of up to a certain amount in the event that a credit market disruption or other factors prevented the conduit from issuing commercial paper.

Indemnifications provided in the ordinary course of business. We provide certain indemnifications, primarily through representations and warranties in contracts that we execute in the ordinary course of business in connection with loan sales and other ongoing activities, as well as in connection with purchases and sales of businesses. We maintain reserves, when appropriate, with respect to liability that reasonably could arise as a result of these indemnities.

Intercompany guarantees. KeyCorp and certain of our affiliates are parties to various guarantees that facilitate the ongoing business activities of other affiliates. These business activities encompass issuing debt, assuming certain lease and insurance obligations, purchasing or issuing investments and securities, and engaging in certain leasing transactions involving clients.