NOTE 14—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, GUARANTEES AND OTHERS

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 GreenPoint Credit, LLC in 2000. Our maximum credit exposure related to these agreements totaled $13 million and $14 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. These agreements are recorded on our consolidated balance sheets as a component of other liabilities and our obligations under these agreements was $10 million and $12 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. See “Note 6—Variable Interest Entities and Securitizations” for additional information about our manufactured housing securitization transactions.

Letters of Credit and Loss Sharing Agreements

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. These 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.

Within our Commercial Banking business, we originate multifamily commercial real estate loans with the intent to sell them to a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”). We enter into loss sharing agreements with the GSE upon the sale of the loans. At inception, we record a liability representing the fair value of our obligation which is subsequently amortized as we are released from risk of payment under the loss sharing agreement. If payment under the loss sharing agreement becomes probable and estimable, an additional liability may be recorded on the consolidated balance sheets and a non-interest expense may be recognized in the consolidated statements of income.

We had standby letters of credit and commercial letters of credit with contractual amounts of $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. The carrying value of outstanding letters of credit, which we include in other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets was $3 million as of both September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014. These financial guarantees had expiration dates ranging from 2015 to 2025 as of September 30, 2015. The amount of liability recognized on our consolidated balance sheets for our loss sharing agreements was $40 million and $36 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. No additional collateral or recourse provisions exist to reduce this exposure.

U.K. Cross Sell

In the U.K., we previously sold payment protection insurance (“PPI”) and other ancillary cross sell products. 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”), formerly the Financial Services Authority, investigated and raised concerns about the way the industry has handled complaints related to the sale of these insurance policies. For the past several years, the U.K.’s Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) has been adjudicating customer complaints relating to PPI, escalated to it by consumers who disagree with the rejection of their complaint by firms, leading to customer remediation payments by us and others within the industry. On October 2, 2015, the FCA issued a Statement on PPI (“the FCA Proposal”) announcing it has decided to consult, by the end of 2015, on the introduction of a time bar for PPI complaints and on new rules and guidance about how banks should handle PPI complaints covered by s. 140A of the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 (“Consumer Credit Act”) in light of the U.K. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Plevin v. Paragon Personal Finance Limited (“Plevin”).

In determining our best estimate of incurred losses for future remediation payments, management considers numerous factors, including: (i) the number of customer complaints we expect in the future; (ii) our expectation of upholding those complaints; (iii) the expected number of complaints customers escalate to the FOS; (iv) our expectation of the FOS upholding such escalated complaints; (v) the number of complaints that fall under the Consumer Credit Act; and (vi) the estimated remediation payout to customers. We monitor these factors each quarter and adjust our reserves to reflect the latest data.

Management’s best estimate of incurred losses related to U.K. cross sell products, including PPI, totaled $207 million and $116 million as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively. In the three months ended September 30, 2015, we added $69 million to our reserve to address the probable and estimable outcomes of the FCA Proposal. The reserve increase reflects our updated estimate of future complaint levels, the nature of the associated refunds, and consideration of the expected deadline date through the first quarter of 2018. Our best estimate of reasonably possible future losses beyond our reserve as of September 30, 2015 is approximately $250 million.

Mortgage Representation and 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, LLC, which was acquired in February 2005; 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 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, taking into account 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-related 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 unpaid principal balance as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014:

Table 14.1: Unpaid Principal Balance of Mortgage Loans Originated and Sold to Third Parties Based on Category of Purchaser



	Estimated Unpaid Principal Balance				Original Principal Balance
(Dollars in billions)	September 30, 2015		December 31, 2014		Total		2008		2007		2006		2005
GSEs	$	2	$	3	$	11	$	1	$	4	$	3	$	3
Insured Securitizations	4		4		20		0		2		8		10
Uninsured Securitizations and Other	14		16		80		3		15		30		32
Total	$	20	$	23	$	111	$	4	$	21	$	41	$	45

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 bond insurance. Further, approximately $16 billion original principal balance was placed in securitizations as to which the monoline bond insurers have made repurchase-related 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-related 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-related 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 was placed in 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 $20 billion in unpaid principal balance remains outstanding as of September 30, 2015, of which approximately $4 billion in unpaid principal balance is at least 90 days delinquent. Approximately $22 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-related requests with regard to approximately $1.7 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans as of September 30, 2015, an $847 million decrease from December 31, 2014. Currently, repurchase-related demands predominantly relate to the 2006 and 2007 vintages. We have received relatively few repurchase-related demands from the 2008 and 2009 vintages, mostly because GreenPoint ceased originating mortgages in August 2007.

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

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



(Dollars in millions)	GSEs			Insured Securitizations			Uninsured Securitizations and Other			Total
Open claims as of December 31, 2013	$	89		$	1,614		$	1,122		$	2,825
Gross new demands received	22			0			742			764
Loans repurchased/made whole	(31		)	0			(5		)	(36		)
Demands rescinded	(64		)	(965		)	(12		)	(1,041		)
Open claims as of December 31, 2014	16			649			1,847			2,512
Gross new demands received	21			0			22			43
Loans repurchased/made whole	(14		)	0			(1		)	(15		)
Demands rescinded	(15		)	(106		)	(754		)	(875		)
Open claims as of September 30, 2015	$	8		$	543		$	1,114		$	1,665

__________

⁽¹⁾

The open pipeline includes all timely repurchase-related requests ever received by our subsidiaries where the requesting party has not formally rescinded the repurchase-related request or our subsidiary has not agreed to either repurchase the loan at issue or make the requesting party whole with respect to its losses. The demands rescinded reflect the June 2015 ruling from New York’s highest court that the statute of limitations for repurchase claims begins when the relevant representations and warranties were made, as opposed to some later date during the life of the loan. 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.

The following table summarizes changes in our representation and warranty reserve for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014:

Table 14.3: Changes in Representation and Warranty Reserve⁽¹⁾



	Three Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
(Dollars in millions)	2015			2014			2015			2014
Representation and warranty reserve, beginning of period	$	636		$	1,012		$	731		$	1,172
(Benefit) provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses:
Recorded in continuing operations	(7		)	0			(15		)	(15		)
Recorded in discontinued operations	3			70			(43		)	34
Total (benefit) provision for mortgage representation and warranty losses	(4		)	70			(58		)	19
Net realized losses	0			(2		)	(41		)	(111		)
Representation and warranty reserve, end of period	$	632		$	1,080		$	632		$	1,080

__________


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

The following table summarizes the allocation of our representation and warranty reserve as September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014.

Table 14.4: Allocation of Representation and Warranty Reserve



	Reserve Liability				Loans Sold 2005 to 2008⁽¹⁾
(Dollars in millions, except for loans sold)	September 30, 2015		December 31, 2014		Loans Sold 2005 to 2008⁽¹⁾
Selected period-end data:
GSEs and Active Insured Securitizations	$	484	$	499	$	27
Inactive Insured Securitizations and Others	148		232		84
Total⁽²⁾	$	632	$	731	$	111

__________


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


⁽²⁾	The total reserve liability includes an immaterial amount related to loans that were originated after 2008.

We established reserves for the $11 billion original principal balance of GSE loans, based on open claims and historic repurchase rates. We have entered into and completed repurchase or settlement agreements with respect to the majority of our repurchase exposure within this category.

Our reserves could also be impacted by any claims which may be brought by governmental agencies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”), the False Claims Act, or other federal or state statutes. For example, GreenPoint and Capital One have received requests for information and/or subpoenas from various governmental regulators and law enforcement authorities, including members of the RMBS Working Group, relating to the origination of loans for sale to the GSEs and to RMBS participants. We are cooperating with these regulators and other authorities in responding to such requests.

For the $16 billion original principal balance in Active Insured Securitizations, our reserving approach is based upon the expected resolution of litigation with the monoline bond insurers. 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 developing factual and legal record to estimate the liability for each securitization. We consider as factors within the analysis our own past monoline settlements in addition to publicly available industry monoline settlements. Our reserves with respect to the U.S. Bank Litigation, 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 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. In addition, to the extent we have litigation reserves with respect to indemnification risks from certain representation and warranty lawsuits brought by parties who purchased loans from our subsidiaries and subsequently re-sold the loans into securitizations, such reserves are also contained within this category.

For the $22 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans sold to private investors as whole loans, we establish reserves based on open claims and historical repurchase rates.

The aggregate reserve for all three subsidiaries totaled $632 million as of September 30, 2015, compared to $731 million as of December 31, 2014. We recorded a net benefit for mortgage representation and warranty losses of $58 million (which includes a benefit of $15 million before taxes in continuing operations and a benefit of $43 million before taxes in discontinued operations) in the first nine months of 2015. The decrease in the representation and warranty reserve was primarily driven by settlements and favorable industry legal developments, including a ruling from New York’s highest court that the statute of limitations for repurchase claims begins when the relevant representations and warranties were made, as opposed to some later date during the life of the loan.

As part of our business planning processes, we have considered various outcomes relating to the 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 our reserves as of September 30, 2015 is approximately $1.6 billion, a decrease from our $2.1 billion estimate at December 31, 2014. The decrease in this estimate was primarily driven by favorable industry legal developments, including the statute of limitations ruling from New York’s highest court mentioned above. The estimate as of September 30, 2015 covers all reasonably possible losses relating to representation and warranty claim activity, including those relating to the U.S. Bank Litigation, the FHFA Litigation, and the LXS Trust Litigation described below.

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 repurchase-related requests will be resolved at discounts reflecting the nature of the claims, the vintage of the underlying loans and evolving legal precedents.

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 potentially 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 FHFA Litigation, and the LXS Trust 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 beyond our reserves as of September 30, 2015 is 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, especially those involving governmental actors, 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. In July 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. In December 2013, the court granted final approval of the proposed class settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2014 and argued before the court on September 28, 2015. 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”). Relatedly, in December 2013, individual consumer plaintiffs also filed a proposed national class action against a number of banks, including Capital One, alleging that because the banks conspired to fix interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the fees than appropriate. The consumer case and virtually all of the opt-out cases were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. In November 2014, the court dismissed the proposed consumer class action. The remaining consolidated cases are in their preliminary stages, and Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of individual opt-out cases, requiring non-material payments from all banks, including Capital One.

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 as of September 30, 2015 was insignificant. 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. In March 2014, the court granted a partial motion for class certification. Both parties appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which heard oral argument in December 2014. In April 2015, the merchant plaintiffs and Capital One agreed to settle all matters filed in Canada as to Capital One, and in August 2015 the courts across the different provinces provided preliminary approval of the class settlement.

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 U.S. 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. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging that COBNA breached its contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law (“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. As a result of a settlement in another matter, the California-based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished. The MDL plaintiffs sought statutory damages, restitution, attorney’s fees and an injunction against future rate increases. In September 2014, the court granted summary judgment for Capital One, which plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2014. The parties will provide oral argument before the circuit court on November 6, 2015.

Mortgage Repurchase Litigation

In February 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 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. In March 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. In February 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”), which affirmed the dismissal in April 2013. The New York Court of Appeals denied Syncora’s and CIFG’s motion for leave to appeal the First Department’s decision in February 2014. Therefore, the case is now proceeding with U.S. Bank as the sole plaintiff. On May 20, 2015, Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. (“LBHI”) filed an adversary proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York against U.S. Bank, Syncora, and GreenPoint regarding bankruptcy proofs of claims filed by U.S. Bank and Syncora on the same securitization at issue in the U.S. Bank Litigation.

In May, June, and July 2012, FHFA (acting as conservator for Freddie Mac) filed three summonses 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. In January 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 has moved to dismiss the case as untimely under New York’s statute of limitations.

In July 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. In January 2014, the court granted GreenPoint’s motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, ruling that New York’s six-year statute of limitations began running no later than the time of the mortgage securitization. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of the complaint.

As noted above in the section entitled Mortgage Representation and 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.

Anti-Money Laundering

Capital One has received requests for subpoenas and testimony from the New York District Attorney’s Office (“NYDA”) with respect to certain former check casher clients of the Commercial Banking business and Capital One’s anti-money laundering (“AML”) program. In early 2015, we received similar requests from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury. Capital One is cooperating with all agencies involved in the investigation.

Subprime Auto Loan Investigations

Capital One has received a subpoena from the NYDA seeking information regarding the Company’s subprime auto finance business. Capital One has also received a subpoena from the DOJ’s New Jersey office requesting information related to subprime auto origination and securitization activities. Capital One is cooperating with both investigations.

Intellectual Ventures Corp., et al.

In June 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 U.S. 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 filed an answer and counterclaim alleging antitrust violations. In December 2013, the court dismissed Capital One’s counterclaim and decided the parties’ arguments on claim construction. IV agreed to dismiss two patents in suit, and following claim construction, asked for a stipulation of non-infringement for one patent with an opportunity to appeal the court’s decision regarding claim construction. In April 2014, the court granted Capital One’s motion for summary judgment and found that the two remaining patents were either unpatentable or indefinite. In May 2014, IV appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all three remaining patents in July 2015.

In January 2014, IV filed a second suit against Capital One for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In the complaint, IV again alleges infringement of patents related to various business practices across the Capital One enterprise. In March 2015, the court granted Capital One’s motion for leave to add a counterclaim for antitrust violations. IV voluntarily dismissed one of the patents against Capital One and in September 2015, the court granted Capital One summary judgment on the remaining four patents and dismissed IV’s claims. IV has appealed the dismissal of its claims to the Federal Circuit.

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.