Legal Proceedings

The nature of Popular’s business ordinarily results in a certain number of claims, litigation, investigations, and legal and administrative cases and proceedings (“Legal Proceedings”). When the Corporation determines that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, it vigorously defends itself. The Corporation will consider the settlement of cases (including cases where it has meritorious defenses) when, in management’s judgment, it is in the best interest of both the Corporation and its shareholders to do so. On at least a quarterly basis, Popular assesses its liabilities and contingencies relating to outstanding Legal Proceedings utilizing the latest information available. For matters where it is probable that the Corporation will incur a material loss and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Corporation establishes an accrual for the loss. Once established, the accrual is adjusted on at least a quarterly basis as appropriate to reflect any relevant developments. For matters where a material loss is not probable, or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual is established.

In certain cases, exposure to loss exists in excess of the accrual to the extent such loss is reasonably possible, but not probable. Management believes and estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses (with respect to those matters where such limits may be determined, in excess of amounts accrued), for current Legal Proceedings ranges from $0 to approximately $24.4 million as of September 30, 2018. For certain other cases, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss at this time. Any estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the Legal Proceedings (including the fact that many of them are currently in preliminary stages), the existence of multiple defendants in several of the current Legal Proceedings whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous unresolved issues in many of the Legal Proceedings, and the inherent uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such Legal Proceedings. Accordingly, management’s estimate will change from time-to-time, and actual losses may be more or less than the current estimate.

While the outcome of Legal Proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, management believes that the amount it has already accrued is adequate and any incremental liability arising from the Legal Proceedings in matters in which a loss amount can be reasonably estimated will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters in a reporting period, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position for that particular period.

Set forth below is a description of the Corporation’s significant Legal Proceedings.

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO

Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation

Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the “Popular Defendants”) have been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Pérez Díaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the “Defendant Insurance Companies”). Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the purported “class” of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the “good experience” commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A hearing on the request for preliminary injunction and other matters was held on February 15, 2017, as a result of which plaintiffs withdrew their request for preliminary injunctive relief. A motion for dismissal on the merits, which the Defendant Insurance Companies filed shortly before hearing, was denied with a right to replead following limited targeted discovery. On March 24, 2017, the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition with the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking a review of the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals denied the Popular Defendant’s request, and the Popular Defendants appealed this determination to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which declined review. On December 21, 2017, plaintiffs sought to amend the complaint and, on January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, on October 26, 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the class; the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the class certification, but on March 4, 2018, the Court of Appeals declined to entertain such petition. At a hearing held on November 2, 2017, the Court encouraged the parties to reach agreement on discovery and class notification procedures. Although the case is still in discovery stage, the parties have not yet reached an agreement as to the class notification procedures.

BPPR has separately been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs essentially contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). Between late March and early April, co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief. A co-defendant filed a third-party Complaint against Antilles Insurance Company. A preliminary injunction and class certification hearing originally scheduled for April 6, 2017 was subsequently postponed, pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. On July 31, 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment and, on March 21, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance’s dismissal. On May 18, 2018, defendants each filed Petitions of Certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. The Petitions of Certiorari were all denied on June 26, 2018 and all parties but BPPR filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of such denial. Those Motions for Reconsideration were denied and one defendant filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which is still pending.

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Claims

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam González Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel (or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”) and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that all defendants (over 20, including all local banks), be held jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR waived service of process in June 2017 and filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants. On March 28, 2018, the Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of such dismissal, which was denied on August 17, 2018. On August 29, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiffs’ appellate brief is due on December 3, 2018 and Defendants’ response brief will be due 30 days thereafter.

BPPR has also been named a defendant in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the González Camacho action referenced above, on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. As in González Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their complaint. On January 3, 2018, plaintiffs requested that BPPR waive service of process, which it agreed to do on February 1, 2018. BPPR subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the González Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the Court granted, denying the motion for class certification on September 26, 2018. On October 8, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of such denial, which BPPR opposed on October 22, 2018. Those motions are still pending.

BPPR has been named a defendant in a complaint for damages and breach of contract captioned Héctor Robles Rodriguez et al. v. Municipio de Ceiba, et al. Plaintiffs are residents of a development called Hacienda Las Lomas. Through the Doral Bank-FDIC assisted transaction, BPPR acquired a significant number of mortgage loans within this development and is currently the primary mortgage lender in the project. Plaintiffs claim damages against the developer, contractor, the relevant insurance companies, and most recently, their mortgage lenders, because of a landslide that occurred in October 2015, affecting various streets and houses within the development. Plaintiffs specifically allege that the mortgage lenders, including BPPR, should be deemed liable for their alleged failure to properly inspect the subject properties. Plaintiffs demand $30 million in damages plus attorney’s fees, costs and the annulment of their mortgages. BPPR extended plaintiffs four consecutive six-month payment forbearances, the last of which is still in effect, and it is engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiffs. In November 2017, the FDIC notified BPPR that it had agreed to indemnify the Bank in connection with its Doral Bank-related exposure, pursuant to the terms of the relevant Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the FDIC. The FDIC filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (“USDC”) on March 27, 2018 and, on April 11 2018, the state court stayed the proceedings in response thereto. On April 13, 2018, the FDIC requested the USDC to stay the proceedings until plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies. This motion is still pending, along with several motions for remand to state court filed by plaintiffs.

Mortgage-Related Investigations

The Corporation and its subsidiaries from time to time receive requests for information from departments of the U.S. government that investigate mortgage-related conduct. In particular, BPPR has received subpoenas and other requests for information from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General mainly concerning real estate appraisals and residential and construction loans in Puerto Rico. The Corporation is cooperating with these requests and is in discussions regarding the resolution of such matters. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of those discussions.

Separately, in July 2017, management learned that certain letters generated by the Corporation to comply with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) rules requiring written notification to borrowers who have submitted a loss mitigation application were not mailed to borrowers over a period of up to approximately three-years due to a systems interface error. Loss mitigation is a process whereby creditors work with mortgage loan borrowers who are having difficulties making their loan payments on their debt. The loss mitigation process applies both to mortgage loans held by the Corporation and to mortgage loans serviced by the Corporation for third parties. The Corporation has corrected the systems interface error that caused the letters not to be sent.

The Corporation notified applicable regulators and conducted a review of its mortgage files to assess the scope of potential customer impact. The review, which has been completed, found that while the mailing error extended to approximately 23,000 residential mortgage loans (approximately 50% of which are serviced by the Corporation for third parties), the number of borrowers actually harmed by the mailing error was substantially lower. This was due to, among other things, the fact that the Corporation regularly uses means other than the mail to communicate with borrowers, including email and hand delivery of written notices at our mortgage servicing centers or bank branches. Importantly, more than half of all borrowers potentially subject to such error actually closed on a loss mitigation alternative.

During the fourth quarter of 2017, the Corporation began outreach to potentially affected borrowers with outstanding loans. These efforts are substantially complete. The Corporation is engaged in ongoing dialogue with applicable regulators with respect to this matter. The Corporation has also engaged in remediation with respect to, and notified regulators of, other printing and mailings incidents in its mortgage servicing operation that occurred after Hurricane Maria. At this point, we are not able to estimate the financial impact of the failure to print and mail letters to mortgage borrowers.

Other Significant Proceedings

In June 2017, a syndicate comprised of BPPR and other local banks (the “Lenders”) filed an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against Betteroads Asphalt and Betterecycling Corporation (the “Involuntary Debtors”). This filing followed attempts by the Lenders to restructure and resolve the Involuntary Debtors’ obligations and outstanding defaults under a certain credit agreement, first through good faith negotiations and subsequently, through the filing of a collection action against the Involuntary Debtors in local court. The involuntary debtors subsequently counterclaimed, asserting damages in excess of $900 million. The Lenders ultimately joined in the commencement of these involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against the Debtors in order to preserve and recover the Involuntary Debtors’ assets, having confirmed that the Involuntary Debtors were transferring assets out of their estate for little or no consideration. The Involuntary Debtors subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings and for damages against the syndicate, arguing both that this petition was filed in bad faith and that there was a bona fide dispute as to the petitioners’ claims, as set forth in the counterclaim filed by the Involuntary Debtors in local court. The court allowed limited discovery to take place prior to an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of debtors’ motion to dismiss. At a hearing held in November 2017, the Court determined that it was inclined to rule against the dismissal of the complaint but requested that the parties submit supplemental briefs on the subject, which the parties did; however, no decision has been rendered to date. On September 17, 2018, the Lenders filed a motion requesting the Court to expedite its determination on the motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Lenders on November 2017, since there were continuing acts by Involuntary Debtor insiders to transfer all revenues and assets to such insiders and shield such revenues and assets from the Lenders and other legitimate creditors. This motion is still pending.

POPULAR SECURITIES

Puerto Rico Bonds and Closed-End Investment Funds

The volatility in prices and declines in value that Puerto Rico municipal bonds and closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Puerto Rico municipal bonds have experienced since August 2013 have led to regulatory inquiries, customer complaints and arbitrations for most broker-dealers in Puerto Rico, including Popular Securities. Popular Securities has received customer complaints and is named as a respondent (among other broker-dealers) in 152 arbitration proceedings with aggregate claimed amounts of approximately $260 million, including one arbitration with claimed damages of approximately $78 million in which another Puerto Rico broker-dealer is a co-defendant. While Popular Securities believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these proceedings, it has often determined that it is in its best interest to settle certain claims rather than expend the money and resources required to see such cases to completion. The Puerto Rico Government’s defaults and non-payment of its various debt obligations, as well as the Commonwealth’s and the Financial Oversight Management Board’s (the “Oversight Board”) decision to pursue restructurings under Title III and Title VI of PROMESA, have increased and may continue to increase the number of customer complaints (and claimed damages) filed against Popular Securities concerning Puerto Rico bonds, including bonds issued by COFINA and GDB, and closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Puerto Rico bonds. An adverse result in the arbitration proceedings described above, or a significant increase in customer complaints, could have a material adverse effect on Popular.

Subpoenas for Production of Documents in relation to PROMESA Title III Proceedings

Popular Securities has, together with Popular, Inc. and BPPR (collectively, the “Popular Companies”) filed an appearance in connection with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s pending Title III bankruptcy proceeding. Its appearance was prompted by a request by the Commonwealth’s Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (“UCC”) to allow a broad discovery program under Rule 2004 to investigate, among other things, the causes of the Puerto Rico financial crisis. The Rule 2004 request sought broad discovery not only from the Popular Companies, but also from others, spanning in excess of eleven (11) years. The Oversight Board, as well as the Popular Companies and others, opposed the UCC’s request. Magistrate Dein denied the UCC’s request without prejudice and allowed the law firm of Kobre & Kim to carry out its own independent investigation on behalf of the Oversight Board.

The Popular Companies have separately been served with additional requests for the preservation and voluntary production of certain documents and witnesses from the UCC and the COFINA Agents in connection with the COFINA-Commonwealth adversary complaint, as well as from the Oversight Board’s Independent Investigator, Kobre & Kim, with respect to its independent investigation. The Popular Companies cooperated with all such requests and asked that such requests be submitted in the form of a subpoena to address privacy and confidentiality considerations pertaining to some of the documents involved in the production.

On August 20, 2018, Kobre & Kim issued its Final Report, which contained various references to the Popular Companies, including allegations that Popular Securities participated as an underwriter in Commonwealth’s 2014 issuance of government obligation bonds notwithstanding having allegedly advised against it. The report discussed that such allegation could give rise to an unjust enrichment claim against the Popular Companies and could also serve as a basis to equitably subordinate any claim it files in the Title III proceeding to other claims.

POPULAR BANK

Josefina Valle v. Popular Community Bank (now Popular Bank)

PB has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, PB customers, alleged among other things that PB engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleged that PB improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PB violate New York’s usury laws. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

After several procedural steps that included a ruling partially granting PB’s motion to dismiss and the filing of an amended complaint that was also partially dismissed, on August 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, PB filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on February 18, 2016, the Court granted it in part and denied it in part, dismissing plaintiffs’ unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28, 2016, PB filed an answer to the second amended complaint and, on November 13, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle. Under this agreement, an amount up to $5.2 million would be paid to qualified claimants. In March 2018, the Court entered an order for the preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 23, 2018, the claims process closed and, on August 6, 2018, the Court granted its final approval of the settlement agreement, entering such final order on August 13, 2018. The settlement became final and unappealable on September 12, 2018.