NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

Contingent Payments Related to Acquisitions and Partnership Agreements

Certain of our acquisition and partnership agreements include contingent payment provisions in which we agree to provide future payments, up to a maximum amount, based on certain performance criteria. Our contingent payment arrangements are generally based on the difference between the expected credit performance of specified loan portfolios as of the date of the applicable agreement and the actual future performance. To the extent that actual losses associated with these portfolios are less than the expected level, we agree to share a portion of the benefit with the seller. The maximum contingent payment amount related to our acquisitions totaled $30 million as of September 30, 2013. The actual payment amount related to the $30 million was determined as of September 30, 2013 and paid on October 15, 2013. As such, we had a liability for contingent payments related to these arrangements of $30 million and $165 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Guarantees

We have credit exposure on agreements that we entered into to absorb a portion of the risk of loss on certain manufactured housing securitizations issued by GPC in 2000. Our maximum credit exposure related to these agreements totaled $17 million and $19 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. These agreements are recorded in our consolidated balance sheets as a component of other liabilities. Our recorded liability under these agreements was $17 million and $17 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities and Securitizations” for additional information about our manufactured housing securitization transactions.

Letters of Credit

We issue letters of credit (financial standby, performance standby and commercial) to meet the financing needs of our customers. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by us to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party in a borrowing arrangement. Commercial letters of credit are short-term commitments issued primarily to facilitate trade finance activities for customers and are generally collateralized by the goods being shipped to the client. Collateral requirements are similar to those for funded transactions and are established based on management’s credit assessment of the customer. Management conducts regular reviews of all outstanding letters of credit and customer acceptances, and the results of these reviews are considered in assessing the adequacy of our allowance for loan and lease losses.

We had standby letters of credit and commercial letters of credit with contractual amounts of $2.0 billion and $1.9 billion as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The carrying value of outstanding letters of credit, which we include in other liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets, was $4 million as of September 30, 2013. These financial guarantees had expiration dates ranging from 2013 to 2025 as of September 30, 2013.

Payment Protection Insurance

In the U.K., we previously sold payment protection insurance (“PPI”). In response to an elevated level of customer complaints across the industry, heightened media coverage and pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) investigated and raised concerns about the way some companies have handled complaints related to the sale of these insurance policies. In connection with this matter, we have established a reserve related to PPI, which totaled $154 million and $220 million as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

Potential Mortgage Representation & Warranty Liabilities

We acquired three subsidiaries that originated residential mortgage loans and sold these loans to various purchasers, including purchasers who created securitization trusts. These subsidiaries are Capital One Home Loans, which was acquired in February 2005; GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“GreenPoint”), which was acquired in December 2006 as part of the North Fork acquisition; and CCB, which was acquired in February 2009 and subsequently merged into CONA (collectively, “the subsidiaries”).

In connection with their sales of mortgage loans, the subsidiaries entered into agreements containing varying representations and warranties about, among other things, the ownership of the loan, the validity of the lien securing the loan, the loan’s compliance with any applicable loan criteria established by the purchaser, including underwriting guidelines and the ongoing existence of mortgage insurance, and the loan’s compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. The representations and warranties do not address the credit performance of the mortgage loans, but mortgage loan performance often influences whether a claim for breach of representation and warranty will be asserted and has an effect on the amount of any loss in the event of a breach of a representation or warranty.

Each of these subsidiaries may be required to repurchase mortgage loans in the event of certain breaches of these representations and warranties. In the event of a repurchase, the subsidiary is typically required to pay the unpaid principal balance of the loan together with interest and certain expenses (including, in certain cases, legal costs incurred by the purchaser and/or others). The subsidiary then recovers the loan or, if the loan has been foreclosed, the underlying collateral. The subsidiary is exposed to any losses on the repurchased loans after giving effect to any recoveries on the collateral. In some instances, rather than repurchase the loans, a subsidiary may agree to make cash payments to make an investor whole on losses or to settle repurchase claims, possibly including claims for attorneys’ fees and interest. In addition, our subsidiaries may be required to indemnify certain purchasers and others against losses they incur as a result of certain breaches of representations and warranties.

These subsidiaries, in total, originated and sold to non-affiliates approximately $111 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans between 2005 and 2008, which are the years (or “vintages”) with respect to which our subsidiaries have received the vast majority of the repurchase requests and other related claims.

The following table presents the original principal balance of mortgage loan originations, by vintage for 2005 through 2008, for the three general categories of purchasers of mortgage loans and the estimated outstanding principal balance as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012:

Table 14.1: Unpaid Principal Balance of Mortgage Loans Originated and Sold to Third Parties Based on Category of Purchaser (UPB is estimated)


	Unpaid Principal Balance				Original Unpaid Principal Balance
(Dollars in billions)	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012		Total		2008		2007		2006		2005
Government sponsored enterprises (“GSEs”)⁽¹⁾	$	3	$	4	$	11	$	1	$	4	$	3	$	3
Insured Securitizations		5		5		20		0		2		8		10
Uninsured Securitizations and Other		19		23		80		3		15		30		32

Total	$	27	$	32	$	111	$	4	$	21	$	41	$	45

⁽¹⁾	GSEs include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Between 2005 and 2008, our subsidiaries sold an aggregate amount of $11 billion in original principal balance mortgage loans to the GSEs.

Of the $20 billion in original principal balance of mortgage loans sold directly by our subsidiaries to private-label purchasers who placed the loans into securitizations supported by bond insurance (“Insured Securitizations”), approximately 48% of the original principal balance was covered by the bond insurance. Further, approximately $16 billion original principal balance was placed in securitizations as to which the monoline bond insurers have made repurchase requests or loan file requests to one of our subsidiaries (“Active Insured Securitizations”) and the remaining approximately $4 billion original principal balance was placed in securitizations as to which the monoline bond insurers have not made repurchase requests or loan file requests to one of our subsidiaries (“Inactive Insured Securitizations”). Insured Securitizations often allow the monoline bond insurer to act independently of the investors. Bond insurers typically have indemnity agreements directly with both the mortgage originators and the securitizers, and they often have super-majority rights within the trust documentation that allow them to direct trustees to pursue mortgage repurchase requests without coordination with other investors.

Because we do not service most of the loans our subsidiaries sold to others, we do not have complete information about the current ownership of a portion of the $80 billion in original principal balance of mortgage loans not sold directly to GSEs or placed in Insured Securitizations. We have determined based on information obtained from third-party databases that about $48 billion original principal balance of these mortgage loans are currently held by private-label publicly issued securitizations not supported by bond insurance (“Uninsured Securitizations”). An additional approximately $22 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans were initially sold to private investors as whole loans. Various known and unknown investors purchased the remaining $10 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans.

With respect to the $111 billion in original principal balance of mortgage loans originated and sold to others between 2005 and 2008, we estimate that approximately $27 billion in unpaid principal balance remains outstanding as of September 30, 2013, of which approximately $6 billion in unpaid principal balance is at least 90 days delinquent. Approximately $20 billion in losses have been realized by third parties. Because we do not service most of the loans we sold to others, we do not have complete information about the underlying credit performance levels for some of these mortgage loans. These amounts reflect our best estimates, including extrapolations of underlying credit performance where necessary. These estimates could change as we get additional data or refine our analysis.

The subsidiaries had open repurchase requests relating to approximately $2.6 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans as of September 30, 2013, compared with $2.4 billion as of December 31, 2012. Currently, repurchase demands predominantly relate to the 2006 and 2007 vintages. We have received relatively few repurchase demands from the 2008 and 2009 vintages, mostly because GreenPoint ceased originating mortgages in August 2007.

The following table presents information on pending repurchase requests by counterparty category and timing of initial repurchase request. The amounts presented are based on original loan principal balances.

Table 14.2: Open Pipeline All Vintages (all entities)⁽¹⁾


(Dollars in millions) (All amounts are Original Principal Balance)	GSEs			Insured Securitizations			Uninsured Securitizations and Other			Total
Open claims as of December 31, 2011	$	176		$	1,243		$	672		$	2,091
Gross new demands received		189			366			291			846
Loans repurchased/made whole		(233	)		(3	)		(138	)		(374	)
Demands rescinded		(75	)		(30	)		(40	)		(145	)
Reclassifications⁽²⁾		2			3			(4	)		1

Open claims as of December 31, 2012	$	59		$	1,579		$	781		$	2,419

Gross new demands received		121			40			191			352
Loans repurchased/made whole		(40	)		(5	)		(20	)		(65	)
Demands rescinded		(94	)		0			(21	)		(115	)

Open claims as of September 30, 2013	$	46		$	1,614		$	931		$	2,591

⁽¹⁾

The open pipeline includes all repurchase requests ever received by our subsidiaries where either the requesting party has not formally rescinded the repurchase request and where our subsidiary has not agreed to either repurchase the loan at issue or make the requesting party whole with respect to its losses. Accordingly, repurchase requests denied by our subsidiaries and not pursued by the counterparty remain in the open pipeline, with the exception of certain aged repurchase requests submitted by parties without contractual standing to pursue such requests, which may be removed from the pipeline. Finally, the amounts reflected in this chart are the original principal balance amounts of the mortgage loans at issue and do not correspond to the losses our subsidiary would incur upon the repurchase of these loans.

⁽²⁾

Represents adjustments to correct the counterparty category as of December 31, 2012 for amounts that were misclassified. The reclassification had no impact on the total pending repurchase requests; however, it resulted in an increase in open claims attributable to GSEs and Insured Securitizations and a decrease in open claims attributable to Uninsured Securitizations and Other.

The following table summarizes changes in our representation and warranty reserves for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, and for full year 2012:

Table 14.3: Changes in Representation and Warranty Reserves


	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
(Dollars in millions)	2013			2012			2013			2012
Representation and warranty repurchase reserve, beginning of period⁽¹⁾	$	1,156		$	1,002		$	899		$	943
Provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses⁽²⁾		(4	)		0			276			349
Net realized losses		(7	)		(83	)		(30	)		(373	)

Representation and warranty repurchase reserve, end of period⁽¹⁾	$	1,145		$	919		$	1,145		$	919

⁽¹⁾	Reported in our consolidated balance sheets as a component of other liabilities.

⁽²⁾

The pre-tax portion of the provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of income as a component of non-interest income was a benefit of $13 million and $27 million in the third quarter and first nine months of 2013, respectively compared with a loss of $42 million in the first nine months of 2012. The portion of the provision for mortgage representation and warranty recognized in our consolidated statements of income as a component of discontinued operations totaled $9 million and $303 million in the third quarter and first nine months of 2013, respectively and $307 million in first nine months of 2012.

As indicated in the table below, most of the reserves relate to the $27 billion in original principal balance of mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs or to the Active Insured Securitizations.

Table 14.4: Allocation of Representation and Warranty Reserves


	Reserve Liability
(Dollars in millions, except for loans sold)	September 30, 2013		December 31, 2012		Loans Sold 2005 to 2008⁽¹⁾
Selected period-end data:
GSEs and Active Insured Securitizations	$	970	$	817	$	27
Inactive Insured Securitizations and Others		175		82		84

Total	$	1,145	$	899	$	111

⁽¹⁾	Reflects, in billions, the total original principal balance of mortgage loans originated by our subsidiaries and sold to third party investors between 2005 and 2008.

In establishing reserves for the $11 billion original principal balance of GSE loans, we rely on the historical relationship between GSE loan losses and repurchase outcomes for each GSE, adjusted for any settlements, to estimate: (1)the percentage of current and future GSE loan defaults that we anticipate will result in repurchase requests from the GSEs over the lifetime of the GSE loans; and (2)the percentage of those repurchase requests that we anticipate will result in actual repurchases. We rely on estimated collateral valuations and loss forecast models to estimate our lifetime liability on GSE loans. This reserving approach to the GSE loans reflects the historical interaction with the GSEs around repurchase requests, and also includes anticipated repurchases resulting from mortgage insurance rescissions. Although our assumed future claims rate considers the most recent claims experience and actual repurchases, an increase in GSE claims and/or repurchases could result in an increase in our reserve. We have entered into and completed repurchase or settlement agreements with respect to the majority of our exposure within this category.

For the $16 billion original principal balance in Active Insured Securitizations, our reserving approach reflects our historical interaction with monoline bond insurers around repurchase requests. Typically, monoline bond insurers allege a very high repurchase rate with respect to the mortgage loans in the Active Insured Securitization category. In response to these repurchase requests, our subsidiaries typically request information from the monoline bond insurers demonstrating that the contractual requirements around a valid repurchase request have been satisfied. In response to these requests for supporting documentation, monoline bond insurers typically initiate litigation. Accordingly, our reserves within the Active Insured Securitization segment are not based upon the historical repurchase rate with monoline bond insurers, but rather upon the expected resolution of litigation with the monoline bond insurers. Every bond insurer within this category is pursuing a substantially similar litigation strategy either through active or probable litigation. Accordingly, our representation and warranty reserves for this category are litigation reserves.

In establishing litigation reserves for this category, we consider the current and future monoline insurer losses inherent within the securitization and apply legal judgment to the anticipated factual and legal record to estimate the lifetime legal liability for each securitization. We rely on our own past monoline settlement ratios in addition to considering publicly available industry monoline settlement ratios to establish these reserves. Our reserves with respect to the U.S. Bank Litigation, the DBSP Litigation, and the Ambac Litigation, in each case as referenced below, are contained within the Active Insured Securitization reserve category. Further, to the extent we have litigation reserves with respect to indemnification risks from certain representation and warranty lawsuits brought by monoline bond insurers against third-party securitizations sponsors, where one of our subsidiaries provided some or all of the mortgage collateral within the securitization but is not a defendant in the litigation, such reserves are also contained within this category.

For the $4 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans in the Inactive Insured Securitizations category and the $48 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans in the Uninsured Securitizations category, we establish reserves based on an assessment of probable and estimable legal liability, if any, utilizing both our own experience and publicly available industry settlement information to estimate lifetime liability. In contrast with the bond insurers in the Insured Securitizations, investors in Uninsured Securitizations often face a number of legal and logistical hurdles before they can force a securitization trustee to pursue mortgage repurchases, including the need to coordinate with a certain percentage of investors holding the securities and to indemnify the trustee for any litigation it undertakes. Accordingly, we only reserve for such exposures when a trustee or investor with standing brings claims and it is probable we have incurred a loss. Some Uninsured Securitization investors from this category are currently suing investment banks and securitization sponsors under federal and/or state securities laws. Although we face some direct and indirect indemnity risks from these litigations, we generally have not established reserves with respect to these indemnity risks because we do not consider them to be both probable and reasonably estimable liabilities.

For the $22 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans sold to private investors as whole loans, we establish reserves by relying on our historical and anticipated claims and repurchase rates to estimate lifetime liability.

The aggregate reserves for all three subsidiaries totaled $1.1 billion as of September 30, 2013, compared with $899 million as of December 31, 2012. We recorded a total benefit for mortgage representation and warranty losses for our representation and warranty repurchase exposure of $4 million in the third quarter of 2013, which was primarily driven by updated economic loss modeling. During the quarter, we had settlements of repurchase requests totaling $7 million that were charged against the reserves.

As part of our business planning processes, we have considered various outcomes relating to the potential future representation and warranty liabilities of our subsidiaries that are possible but do not rise to the level of being both probable and reasonably estimable outcomes justifying an incremental accrual under applicable accounting standards. Our current best estimate of reasonably possible future losses from representation and warranty claims beyond what was in our reserve as of September 30, 2013 is approximately $2.5 billion, a decline from our estimate of $2.7 billion as of December 31, 2012. The estimate as of September 30, 2013 covers all reasonably possible losses relating to representation and warranty claim activity, including those relating to the U.S. Bank Litigation, the DBSP Litigation, the Ambac Litigation, the FHFA Litigation, the LXS Trust Litigation and the FHLB of Boston Litigation.

In estimating reasonably possible future losses in excess of our current reserves, we assume a portion of the inactive securitizations become active and for all Insured Securitizations, we assume loss rates on the high end of those observed in monoline settlements or court rulings. For our remaining GSE exposures, Uninsured Securitizations and whole loan exposures, our reasonably possible risk estimates assume lifetime loss rates and claims rates at the highest levels of our past experience and also consider the limited instances of observed settlements. We do not assume claim rates or loss rates for these risk categories will be as high as those assumed for the Active Insured Securitizations, however, based on industry precedent. Should the number of claims or the loss rates on these claims increase significantly, our estimate of reasonably possible risk would increase materially. We also assume that we will resolve any loan repurchase requests relating to loans originated more than six years ago at a discount as compared to those originated within six years of a repurchase claim because of the pending legal arguments in various matters around the applicable statute of limitations.

Notwithstanding our ongoing attempts to estimate a reasonably possible amount of future losses beyond our current accrual levels based on current information, it is possible that actual future losses will exceed both the current accrual level and our current estimate of the amount of reasonably possible losses. Our reserve and reasonably possible estimates involve considerable judgment and reflect that there is still significant uncertainty regarding numerous factors that may impact the ultimate loss levels, including, but not limited to: litigation outcomes; court rulings; governmental enforcement decisions; future repurchase and indemnification claim levels; securitization trustees pursuing mortgage repurchase litigation unilaterally or in coordination with investors; investors successfully pursuing repurchase litigation independently and without the involvement of the trustee as a party; ultimate repurchase and indemnification rates; future mortgage loan performance levels; actual recoveries on the collateral; and macroeconomic conditions (including unemployment levels and housing prices). In light of the significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability our subsidiaries may incur from these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

Litigation

In accordance with the current accounting standards for loss contingencies, we establish reserves for litigation related matters when it is probable that a loss associated with a claim or proceeding has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Litigation claims and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance. Below we provide a description of material legal proceedings and claims.

For some of the matters disclosed below, we are able to determine estimates of potential future outcomes that are not probable and reasonably estimable outcomes justifying either the establishment of a reserve or an incremental reserve build, but which are reasonably possible outcomes. For other disclosed matters, such an estimate is not possible at this time. For those matters below where an estimate is possible (excluding the reasonably possible future losses relating to the U.S. Bank Litigation, the DBSP Litigation, the Ambac Litigation, the FHFA Litigation, the LXS Trust Litigation and the FHLB of Boston Litigation, because reasonably possible losses with respect to those litigations are included within the reasonably possible representation and warranty liabilities discussed above) management currently estimates the reasonably possible future losses could be approximately $250 million. Notwithstanding our attempt to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss beyond our current accrual levels for some litigation matters based on current information, it is possible that actual future losses will exceed both the current accrual level and the range of reasonably possible losses disclosed here. Given the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability we may incur from these litigation matters and an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

Interchange Litigation

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the “Interchange Lawsuits”) against MasterCard and Visa and several member banks, including our subsidiaries and us, alleging among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. On July 13, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the court a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on certain terms set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the Memorandum. The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i) payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court approval of the class settlement. In November 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. In September 2013, the court held oral argument to consider final approval of the class settlement. Several merchant plaintiffs have also opted out of the class settlement, some of which have sued MasterCard, Visa and various member banks, including Capital One (collectively “the Opt-Out Plaintiffs”). These cases are in their preliminary stages.

As members of Visa, our subsidiary banks have indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements, including the Interchange Lawsuits. In the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, we reduced our Visa-related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-interest expense. We made an election in accordance with the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair value of the guarantee at December 31, 2012 and September 30, 2013 was zero. Separately, in January 2011, we entered into a MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One (the “Watson Litigation”). The lawsuit asserts, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other jurisdictions in Canada. The Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the Watson Litigation in April, 2013, and the parties await a ruling.

Late Fees Litigation

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against several issuing banks, including us. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests civil monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief. In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs’ appeal challenges the dismissal of their claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims. In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial institutions. After numerous stays since 2009, the Ninth Circuit entered an order lifting the stay on August 29, 2012, and will now hear the appeal. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on February 11, 2013, and the parties await the court’s decision.

Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation (“MDL”), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D. Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a putative class action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney’s fees and an injunction against future rate increases. Fact discovery is now closed. On August 8, 2011, Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains pending with the court. On July 22, 2013, the MDL plaintiffs filed a supplemental opposition to Capital One’s motion for summary judgment. As a result of a settlement in another matter, the California-based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished.

Mortgage Repurchase Litigation

On February 5, 2009, GreenPoint was named as a defendant in a lawsuit commenced in the New York County Supreme Court, by U.S. Bank, N. A., Syncora Guarantee Inc. and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. (the “U.S. Bank Litigation”). Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that GreenPoint breached certain representations and warranties in two contracts pursuant to which GreenPoint sold approximately 30,000 mortgage loans having an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $1.8 billion to a purchaser that ultimately transferred most of these mortgage loans to a securitization trust. Some of the securities issued by the trust were insured by two of the plaintiffs - Syncora and CIFG. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order compelling GreenPoint to repurchase the entire portfolio of 30,000 mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations and warranties relating to a limited sampling of loans in the portfolio, or, alternatively, the repurchase of specific mortgage loans to which the alleged breaches of representations and warranties relate. On March 3, 2010, the Court granted GreenPoint’s motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs Syncora and CIFG and denied the motion with respect to U.S. Bank. GreenPoint subsequently answered the complaint with respect to U.S. Bank, denying the allegations, and filed a counterclaim against U.S. Bank alleging breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On February 28, 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint and dismissed Syncora and CIFG from the case. Syncora and CIFG appealed their dismissal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (the “First Department”). In April, 2013, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of Syncora and CIFG from the case.

In September, 2010, DB Structured Products, Inc. (“DBSP”) named GreenPoint in a third-party complaint, filed in the New York County Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking indemnification (the “DBSP Litigation”). In the underlying suit, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“AGM”) sued DBSP for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made by DBSP with respect to certain residential mortgage loans that collateralize a securitization insured by AGM and sponsored by DBSP. DBSP purchased the HELOC loans from GreenPoint in 2006. The entire securitization, almost all of which is insured by AGM, is comprised of loans with an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $353 million. DBSP asserts that any liability it faces lies with GreenPoint, alleging that DBSP’s representations and warranties to AGM are substantially similar to the representations and warranties made by GreenPoint to DBSP. GreenPoint filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in October 2010, which the court denied on July 25, 2011.

On October 24, 2012, Capital One, N.A., (“CONA”) as successor to Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. (“CCB”), was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York by Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation (the “Ambac Litigation”). Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that CONA (as successor to Chevy Chase Bank (“CCB”)) breached certain representations and warranties in contracts relating to six securitizations with an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $5.2 billion which were sponsored by a CCB affiliate in 2006 and 2007 and backed by loans originated by CCB. Almost half of the securities issued by the six trusts are insured by Ambac. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an order compelling CONA to indemnify Ambac for all accrued and future damages based on alleged breaches of representations and warranties relating to a limited sampling of loans in the portfolio, the repurchase of specific mortgage loans to which the alleged breaches of representations and warranties relate, and all related fees, costs, and interest. CONA moved to dismiss the complaint on January 14, 2013, and that motion remains pending.

On May 30, June 29, and July 30, 2012, FHFA (acting as conservator for Freddie Mac) filed three summons with notice in the New York state court against GreenPoint, on behalf of the trustees for three RMBS trusts backed by loans originated by GreenPoint with an aggregate original principal balance of $3.4 billion. On January 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in the name of the three trusts, acting by the respective trustees, alleging breaches of contractual representations and warranties regarding compliance with GreenPoint underwriting guidelines relating to certain loans. (the “FHFA Litigation”). Plaintiffs seek specific performance of the repurchase obligations with respect to the loans for which they have provided notice of alleged breaches as well as all other allegedly breaching loans, rescissory damages, indemnification, costs and interest. GreenPoint moved to dismiss the complaint on April 4, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, Lehman XS Trust, Series 2006-4N, by its trustee U.S. Bank, N.A. filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against GreenPoint alleging breaches of representations and warranties made in certain loan sale agreements, pursuant to which GreenPoint sold mortgage loans with an original principal balance of $915 million to Lehman Brothers for securitization and sale to investors. The lawsuit (“the LXS Trust Litigation”) seeks specific performance of GreenPoint’s obligation to repurchase certain allegedly breaching loans, or in the alternative, the repurchase of all loans in the trust, the award of rescissory damages, costs, fees and interest.

As noted above in the section entitled Potential Mortgage Representation & Warranty Liabilities, the Company’s subsidiaries establish reserves with respect to representation and warranty litigation matters, where appropriate, within the Company’s overall representation and warranty reserves. Please see above for more details.

FHLB Securities Litigation

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the “FHLB of Boston”) filed suit against dozens of mortgage industry participants in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging, among other things, violations of Massachusetts state securities laws in the sale and marketing of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (the “FHLB of Boston Litigation”). Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One, National Association are named in the complaint as alleged successors in interest to Chevy Chase Bank, which allegedly marketed some of the mortgage-backed securities at issue in the litigation. The FHLB of Boston seeks rescission, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified relief. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in May 2011. FHLB of Boston filed an Amended Complaint on June 29, 2012, and the Company’s motion to dismiss was denied on September 30, 2013.

Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

In May, 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and COBNA were named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that our methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21, 2011, the MDL court granted CONA’s motion to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. On June 21, 2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The modified scheduling order entered by the MDL court on August 13, 2013, contemplates the conclusion of discovery in the first quarter of 2014 and we anticipate a remand to the Eastern District of Louisiana in the second quarter of 2014.

Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri and New Mexico State Attorney General Payment Protection Matters

On April 12, 2012, the Attorney General of Hawaii filed a lawsuit in First Circuit Court in Hawaii against Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., and Capital One Services, LLC. The case is one of several similar lawsuits filed by the Attorney General of Hawaii against various banks challenging the marketing and sale of payment protection and credit monitoring products. On June 28, 2012, the Attorney General of Mississippi filed substantially similar suits against Capital One and several other banks. On April 17, 2013, the Attorney General of New Mexico also filed substantially similar suits against Capital One and several other banks. All three state attorney general complaints allege that Capital One enrolls customers in such programs without their consent and that Capital One enrolls customers in such programs in circumstances in which the customer is not eligible to receive benefits for the product in question. All suits allege unjust enrichment and violation of Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act statutes. The remedies sought in the lawsuits include an injunction prohibiting the Company from engaging in the alleged violations, restitution for all persons allegedly injured by the complained of practices, civil penalties and costs.

On May 18, 2012, Capital One removed the Hawaii AG case to U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii. On November 30, 2012, the court denied the Hawaii AG’s motion to remand. The Hawaii AG petitioned to appeal the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted by the Ninth Circuit on April 1, 2013. The District Court case is now stayed pending the appeal.

On August 10, 2012, Capital One removed the Mississippi AG case to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi. On July 31, 2013, the court denied the Mississippi AG’s motion to remand. The Mississippi AG petitioned to appeal the District Court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted by the Fifth Circuit on October 3, 2013.

On June 3, 2013, Capital One removed the New Mexico AG case to the U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico. In response, on July 2, 2013, the New Mexico AG filed an Amended Complaint in federal court, adding a claim for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

Relatedly, Capital One has provided information to the Attorney General of Missouri as part of an industry-wide informal inquiry initiated in August, 2011, relating to the marketing of payment protection products.

Intellectual Ventures Corp., et al.

On June 19, 2013, Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (collectively “IV”) sued Capital One Financial Corp., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Capital One, N.A. (collectively “Capital One”) for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In the Complaint, IV alleges infringement of patents related to various business processes across the Capital One enterprise. IV simultaneously filed patent infringement actions against numerous other financial institutions on the same and other patents in several other federal courts. Capital One’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice on August 28, 2013. Capital One filed an answer and counterclaim alleging antitrust violations. Discovery in the case is ongoing and the final pretrial conference is currently scheduled for December 19, 2013.

Derivative Actions

On August 17, 2012, a derivative action, titled Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Fairbank, et al., Case No. 2012 14130 (“Iron Workers Action”), was filed by a putative stockholder on behalf of the Company in Virginia Circuit Court of Fairfax County (hereafter “Virginia Circuit Court”) against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company, alleging breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and unjust enrichment. The allegations stem from the Company’s entering into consent orders with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding vendor sales practices of payment protection and credit monitoring products. Plaintiff shareholder generally alleges that the alleged failure of the Company’s officers and directors to oversee certain practices between 2010 and early 2012 caused harm to the Company, which is named as a “nominal defendant.” The action includes claims for, among other things, damages in favor of the Company, certain corporate actions to purportedly improve the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys’ fees. On September 19, 2012, a second derivative complaint, titled Barovic v. Fairbank, et al., Case No. 2012 14130, was filed by another putative stockholder on behalf of the Company also in the Virginia Circuit Court. The Barovic derivative complaint is substantially identical to the Iron Workers’ Action (collectively “Derivative Actions”). The defendants removed the Derivative Actions to federal court and moved to dismiss the complaints. On June 24, 2013, the court granted Capital One’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege facts showing that the Board could not be impartial in responding to a litigation demand. The court also dismissed with prejudice the claims for unjust enrichment and corporate waste, and the claims against the named officer defendants. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2013, which Capital One moved to dismiss with prejudice on July 25, 2013. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted Capital One’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, thereby dismissing the consolidated matter in its entirety.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation (“TCPA MDL”), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois)-and several individual lawsuits. On February 28, 2013, the putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.

Other Pending and Threatened Litigation

In addition, we are commonly subject to various pending and threatened legal actions relating to the conduct of our normal business activities. In the opinion of management, the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of all such other pending or threatened legal actions will not be material to our consolidated financial position or our results of operations.