COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES

Off-Balance Sheet Risk - Financial Instruments

In the normal course of business, the Company utilizes a variety of financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk to meet the financing needs of its customers and manage its exposure to fluctuations in interest rates. These financial instruments include commitments to extend credit, letters of credit, loans sold with recourse, forward contracts, and interest rate and cross currency swaps, caps and floors. These financial instruments may involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit, liquidity, and interest rate risk in excess of the amount recognized on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The contractual or notional amounts of these financial instruments reflect the extent of involvement the Company has in particular classes of financial instruments.

The Company’s exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit, letters of credit and loans sold with recourse is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments and conditional obligations as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. For forward contracts and interest rate swaps, caps and floors, the contract or notional amounts do not represent exposure to credit loss. The Company controls the credit risk of its forward contracts and interest rate swaps, caps and floors through credit approvals, limits and monitoring procedures. See Note 11 to these Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for discussion of all derivative contract commitments.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

The following table details the amount of commitments at the dates indicated:

Other Commitments	June 30, 2020		December 31, 2019
	(in thousands)
Commitments to extend credit	$	32,068,222	$	30,685,478
Letters of credit	1,653,301		1,592,726
Commitments to sell loans	44,588		21,341
Unsecured revolving lines of credit	26,854		24,922
Recourse exposure on sold loans	53,389		53,667
Total commitments	$	33,846,354	$	32,378,134

Commitments to Extend Credit

Commitments to extend credit generally have fixed expiration dates, are variable rate, and contain provisions that permit the Company to terminate or otherwise renegotiate the contracts in the event of a significant deterioration in the customer’s credit quality. These arrangements normally require payment of a fee by the customer, the pricing of which is based on prevailing market conditions, credit quality, probability of funding, and other relevant factors. Since many of these commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the contract amounts are not necessarily indicative of future cash requirements.

Included within the reported balances for Commitments to extend credit at June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 are $6.5 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively, of commitments that can be canceled by the Company without notice.

Commitments to extend credit also include amounts committed by the Company to fund its investments in CRA, LIHTC, and other equity method investments in which it is a limited partner.

Letters of Credit

The Company’s letters of credit meet the definition of a guarantee. Letters of credit commit the Company to make payments on behalf of its customers if specified future events occur. The guarantees are primarily issued to support public and private borrowing arrangements. The weighted average term of these commitments at June 30, 2020 was 15.1 months. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers. In the event of a requested draw by the beneficiary that complies with the terms of the letter of credit, the Company would be required to honor the commitment. The Company has various forms of collateral for these letters of credit, including real estate assets and other customer business assets. The maximum undiscounted exposure related to these commitments at June 30, 2020 was $1.7 billion. The fees related to letters of credit are deferred and amortized over the life of the respective commitments, and were immaterial to the Company’s financial statements at June 30, 2020. Management believes that the utilization rate of these letters of credit will continue to be substantially less than the amount of the commitments, as has been the Company’s experience to date. The credit risk associated with letters of credit is monitored using the same risk rating system utilized within the loan and financing lease portfolio. As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the liability related to unfunded lending commitments of $122.7 million and $89.6 million, respectively.

Unsecured Revolving Lines of Credit

Such commitments arise primarily from agreements with customers for unused lines of credit on unsecured revolving accounts and credit cards, provided there is no violation of conditions in the underlying agreement. These commitments, substantially all of which the Company can terminate at any time and which do not necessarily represent future cash requirements, are reviewed periodically based on account usage, customer creditworthiness and loan qualifications.

Loans Sold with Recourse

The Company has loans sold with recourse that meet the definition of a guarantee. For loans sold with recourse under the terms of its multifamily sales program with the FNMA, the Company retained a portion of the associated credit risk.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

Commitments to Sell Loans

The Company enters into forward contracts relating to its mortgage banking business to hedge the exposures from commitments to make new residential mortgage loans with existing customers and from mortgage loans classified as LHFS. These contracts mature in less than one year.

SC Commitments

The following table summarizes liabilities recorded for commitments and contingencies as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, all of which are included in Accounts payable and accrued expenses in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets:

Agreement or Legal Matter	Commitment or Contingency	June 30, 2020		December 31, 2019
		(in thousands)
Chrysler Agreement	Revenue-sharing and gain/(loss), net-sharing payments	$	(2,228)	$	12,132
Agreement with Bank of America	Servicer performance fee	1,508		2,503
Agreement with CBP	Loss-sharing payments	940		1,429
Other contingencies	Consumer arrangements	12,300		1,991

Following is a description of the agreements and legal matters pursuant to which the liabilities in the preceding table were recorded.

Chrysler Agreement

Under the terms of the Chrysler agreement, SC must make revenue sharing payments to FCA and also must share with FCA when residual gains/(losses) on leased vehicles exceed a specified threshold. The agreement also requires that SC maintain at least $5.0 billion in funding available for floor plan loans and $4.5 billion of financing dedicated to FCA retail financing. In turn, FCA must provide designated minimum threshold percentages of its subvention business to SC.

Agreement with Bank of America

Until January 2017, SC had a flow agreement with Bank of America whereby SC was committed to sell up to $300.0 million of eligible loans to the bank each month. SC retains servicing on all sold loans and may receive or pay a servicer performance payment based on an agreed-upon formula if performance on the sold loans is better or worse, respectively, than expected performance at the time of sale. Servicer performance payments are due six years from the cut-off date of each loan sale.

Agreement with CBP

Until May 2017, SC sold loans to CBP under terms of a flow agreement and predecessor sale agreements. SC retained servicing on the sold loans and owes CBP a loss-sharing payment capped at 0.5% of the original pool balance if losses exceed a specified threshold, established on a pool-by-pool basis. Loss-sharing payments are due the month in which net losses exceed the established threshold of each loan sale.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

Agreements

Bluestem

SC is party to agreements with Bluestem whereby SC is committed to purchase certain new advances on personal revolving financings receivables, along with existing balances on accounts with new advances, originated by Bluestem for an initial term ending in April 2020 and renewing through April 2022 at Bluestem's option. As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the total unused credit available to customers was $3.0 billion and $3.0 billion, respectively. In 2020, SC purchased $0.5 billion of receivables out of the $3.0 billion unused credit available to customers as of December 31, 2019. In 2019, SC purchased $1.2 billion of receivables out of the $3.1 billion unused credit available to customers as of December 31, 2018. In addition, SC purchased $78.8 million and $75.5 million of receivables related to newly-opened customer accounts during the six-month periods ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

Each customer account generated under the agreements generally is approved with a credit limit higher than the amount of the initial purchase, with each subsequent purchase automatically approved as long as it does not cause the account to exceed its limit and the customer is in good standing. As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, SC was obligated to purchase $14.9 million and $10.6 million, respectively, in receivables that had been originated by Bluestem but not yet purchased by SC. SC also is required to make a profit-sharing payment to Bluestem each month if performance exceeds a specified return threshold. The agreement, among other provisions, gives Bluestem the right to repurchase up to 9.99% of the existing portfolio at any time during the term of the agreement and, provides that, if the repurchase right is exercised, Bluestem has the right to retain up to 20.00% of new accounts subsequently originated.

On March 9, 2020, Bluestem and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Bluestem has obtained court authorization to continue to perform under its agreements with SC while its bankruptcy cases are pending and has an approved agreement to sell its assets to a third party by August 31, 2020. There are a number outcomes that could occur from the bankruptcy, including but not limited to, assumption of the agreements by the third party asset purchaser, an amendment to the agreements or the liquidation of the Bluestem assets.

Others

Under terms of an application transfer agreement with Nissan, SC has the first opportunity to review for its own portfolio any credit applications turned down by Nissan’s captive finance company. The agreement does not require SC to originate any loans, but for each loan originated SC will pay Nissan a referral fee.

In connection with the sale of RICs through securitizations and other sales, SC has made standard representations and warranties customary to the consumer finance industry. Violations of these representations and warranties may require SC to repurchase loans previously sold to on- or off-balance sheet Trusts or other third parties. As of June 30, 2020, there were no loans that were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of representations and warranties for SC's ABS or other sales. In the opinion of management, the potential exposure of other recourse obligations related to SC’s RICs sale agreements is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's or SC’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Santander has provided guarantees on the covenants, agreements, and obligations of SC under the governing documents of its warehouse facilities and privately issued amortizing notes. These guarantees are limited to the obligations of SC as servicer.

In November 2015, SC executed a forward flow asset sale agreement with a third party under the terms of which SC is committed to sell $350.0 million in charged-off loan receivables in bankruptcy status on a quarterly basis. However, any sale of more than $275.0 million is subject to a market price check. The remaining aggregate commitment as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019 not subject to a market price check was $27.7 million and $39.8 million, respectively.

Other Off-Balance Sheet Risk

Other off-balance sheet risk stems from financial instruments that do not meet the definition of guarantees under applicable accounting guidance and from other relationships that include items such as indemnifications provided in the ordinary course of business and intercompany guarantees.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

The Company, including its subsidiaries, is and in the future periodically expects to be party to, or otherwise involved in, various claims, disputes, lawsuits, investigations, regulatory matters and other legal matters and proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of any such claim, dispute, lawsuit, investigation, regulatory matter and/or legal proceeding, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Company generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of the matters, or the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to the matters, if any. Accordingly, except as provided below, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of its potential exposure, if any, to these claims, disputes, lawsuits, investigations, regulatory matters and other legal proceedings at this time. It is reasonably possible that actual outcomes or losses may differ materially from the Company's current assessments and estimates, and any adverse resolution of any of these matters against it could materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial position, liquidity, and results of operations.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for legal and regulatory proceedings when those matters present material loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a legal or regulatory proceeding develops, the Company, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether the matter presents a material loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If a determination is made during a given quarter that a material loss contingency is probable and estimable, an accrued liability is established during such quarter with respect to such loss contingency, and the Company continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability previously established.

As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company accrued aggregate legal and regulatory liabilities of approximately $185 million and $295 million, respectively. Further, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses for legal and regulatory proceedings, in excess of reserves established, of up to approximately $145 million as of June 30, 2020. Set forth below are descriptions of the material lawsuits, regulatory matters and other legal proceedings to which the Company is subject.

SHUSA Matter

On March 21, 2017, SC and SHUSA entered into a written agreement with the FRB of Boston. Under the terms of that agreement, SC is required to enhance its compliance risk management program, board oversight of risk management and senior management oversight of risk management, and SHUSA is required to enhance its oversight of SC's management and operations.

Chase Mortgage Loan Sale Indemnity Demand 

In connection with a 2007 sale by Sovereign Bank of approximately 35,000 second lien mortgage loans to Chase, Chase asserted an indemnity claim against SBNA of approximately $38.0 million under the mortgage loan purchase agreement based on alleged breaches of representations and warranties. The parties resolved this dispute pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.   

Mortgage Escrow Interest Putative Class Action

The Bank is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit (the “Tepper Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Daniel and Rebecca Ruf-Tepper v. Santander Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00501. The Tepper Lawsuit, filed in January 2020, alleges that the Bank is obligated to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts pursuant to state law. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Bank has filed a motion to dismiss.

Congressional Inquiry into PPP

After June 15, 2020, SBNA and seven other financial institutions received a request from the Congressional Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus to provide information and documents related to PPP implementation. SBNA produced documents in response to this request and continues to cooperate with the subcommittee.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

SC Matters

Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

Deka Lawsuit: SC is a defendant in a purported securities class action lawsuit (the "Deka Lawsuit") in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought against SC, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in SC's IPO, including SIS, on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired SC securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning SC’s ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of SC’s compliance systems and oversight. In December 2015, SC and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int’l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. On July 28, 2020, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the Deka Lawsuit that fully resolves all of the plaintiffs' claims, for a cash payment of $47 million. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court and is not expected to have any financial impact to the Company.

In Re Santander Consumer USA Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation: In October 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Feldman v. Jason A. Kulas, et al., C.A. No. 11614-VCG (the "Feldman Lawsuit"). The Feldman Lawsuit names as defendants certain current and former members of SC’s Board of Directors, and names SC as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the current and former director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with overseeing SC’s nonprime auto lending practices, resulting in harm to SC. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. In December 2015, the Feldman Lawsuit was stayed pending the resolution of the Deka Lawsuit. In September 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Jackie888, Inc. v. Jason Kulas, et al., C.A. No. 12775-VCG (the "Jackie888 Lawsuit"). The Jackie888 Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of SC’s Board of Directors, and names SC as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with SC’s accounting practices and controls. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. In April 2017, the Jackie888 Lawsuit was stayed pending the resolution of the Deka Lawsuit. In March 2018, the Feldman Lawsuit and Jackie888 Lawsuit were consolidated under the caption In Re Santander Consumer USA Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11614-VCG. In January 2020, the Company executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release with the plaintiffs in the consolidated action that, subject to court approval, fully resolves all of the plaintiffs’ claims in the Feldman Lawsuit and the Jackie888 Lawsuit. The Stipulation provides for the settlement of the consolidated action and, in return the Company has enacted or will enact and implement certain corporate governance reforms and enhancements. The Settlement Hearing at which the Court would consider the settlement was scheduled for May 27, 2020, but on May 22, 2020, a shareholder filed its notice of intent to object to the settlement and the parties agreed to postpone the Settlement Hearing to a later date.

Consumer Lending Cases

SC is also party to various lawsuits pending in federal and state courts alleging violations of state and federal consumer lending laws, including, without limitation, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, wrongful repossession laws, usury laws and laws related to unfair and deceptive acts or practices. In general, these cases seek damages and equitable and/or other relief.

Regulatory Investigations and Proceedings

SC is party to, or is periodically otherwise involved in, reviews, investigations, examinations and proceedings (both formal and informal), and information-gathering requests, by government and self-regulatory agencies, including the FRB of Boston, the CFPB, the DOJ, the SEC, the Federal Trade Commission and various state regulatory and enforcement agencies.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

Currently, such matters include, but are not limited to, the following:

•SC received a civil subpoena from the DOJ in 2014 under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime vehicle loans. SC has responded to these requests within the deadlines specified in the subpoenas and has otherwise cooperated with the DOJ with respect to this matter.

•In October 2014, May 2015, July 2015 and February 2017, SC received subpoenas and/or CIDs from the Attorneys General of California, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington under the authority of each state's consumer protection statutes. On May 19, 2020, all of the Consortium members and SC announced a settlement of the investigation requiring SC to: (1) pay a total of $65 million to the states for consumer remediation; (2) pay $5 million to the states for investigation costs; (3) pay up to $2 million in settlement administration costs; (4) provide $45 million in prospective debt forgiveness; (5) provide deficiency waivers for a defined class of SC customers; and (6) implement certain enhancements to its loan underwriting process.

•In August 2017, SC received CIDs from the CFPB. The stated purpose of the CIDs are to determine whether SC has complied with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and related regulations. SC has responded to these requests within the applicable deadlines and has otherwise cooperated with the CFPB with respect to this matter. In February 2020, the Company received a communication from the CFPB inviting the Company to respond to the CFPB’s identified issues in the form of a Notice of Opportunity to Respond and Advise, in which the CFPB identified potential claims it might bring against SC.

Mississippi Attorney General Lawsuit

In January 2017, Mississippi AG filed a lawsuit against SC in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, State of Mississippi, captioned State of Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., C.A. # G-2017-28. The complaint alleges that SC engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices to induce Mississippi consumers to apply for loans that they could not afford. The complaint asserts claims under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and seeks unspecified civil penalties, equitable relief and other relief. In March 2017, SC filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and the parties are proceeding with discovery.

IHC Matters

Periodically, SSLLC is party to pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including FINRA arbitration actions and class action claims.

Puerto Rico FINRA Arbitrations

As of June 30, 2020, SSLLC had received 764 FINRA arbitration cases related to Puerto Rico bonds and Puerto Rico CEFs, generally, that SSLLC previously recommended and/or sold to clients. Most of these cases are based upon concerns regarding the local Puerto Rico securities market. The statements of claims allege, among other things, fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unsuitability, over-concentration and failure to supervise. There were 346 arbitration cases pending as of June 30, 2020. The Company has experienced a decrease in the volume of claims since September 30, 2019; however, it is reasonably possible that it could experience an increase in claims in future periods.

NOTE 15. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND GUARANTEES (continued)

Puerto Rico Putative Class Action: SSLLC, Santander BanCorp, BSPR, the Company and Santander are defendants in a putative class action alleging federal securities and common law claims relating to the solicitation and purchase of more than $180.0 million of Puerto Rico bonds and $101.0 million of CEFs during the period from December 2012 to October 2013. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and is captioned Jorge Ponsa-Rabell, et. al. v. SSLLC, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-02243. The amended complaint alleges that defendants acted in concert to defraud purchasers in connection with the underwriting and sale of Puerto Rico municipal bonds, CEFs and open-end funds. In May 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 22, 2020, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

Puerto Rico Municipal Bond Insurer Litigation: On August 8, 2019, bond insurers National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation and MBIA Insurance Corporation filed suit in Puerto Rico state court against eight Puerto Rico municipal bond underwriters, including SSLLC, alleging that the underwriters made misrepresentations in connection with the issuance of the debt and that the bond insurers relied on such misrepresentations in agreeing to insure certain of the bonds. The complaint alleges damages of not less than $720.0 million. The defendants removed the case to federal court, and plaintiffs have sought to return the case to state court.

These matters are ongoing and could in the future result in the imposition of damages, fines or other penalties. No assurance can be given that the ultimate outcome of these matters or any resulting proceedings would not materially and adversely affect the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.