NOTE 15—COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES

Letters of Credit

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

We had contractual amounts of standby letters of credit and commercial letters of credit of $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. As of March 31, 2012, financial guarantees had expiration dates ranging from 2012 to 2023. The fair value of the guarantees outstanding which we included in our consolidated balance sheets in other liabilities was $3 million as of March 31, 2012.

Contingent Payments Related to Acquisitions and Partnership Agreements

Certain of our acquisition and partnership agreements include contingent payment provisions in which we agree to provide future payments, up to a maximum amount, based on certain performance criteria. Our contingent payment arrangements are generally based on the difference between the expected credit performance of specified loan portfolios as of the date of the applicable agreement and the actual future performance. To the extent that actual losses associated with these portfolios are less than the expected level, we agree to share a portion of the benefit with the seller. The maximum contingent payment amount related to our acquisitions totaled $330 million as of March 31, 2012. The actual payment amount related to $30 million of this balance will be determined as of September 30, 2012. The actual payment amount related to the remaining $300 million of this balance will be determined as of December 31, 2013. We recognized expense related to contingent payment arrangements of $12 million in Q1 2012. As such, we had a liability for contingent payments related to these arrangements of $100 million and $88 million as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Potential Mortgage Representation & Warranty Liabilities

In recent years, we acquired three subsidiaries that originated residential mortgage loans and sold them to various purchasers, including purchasers who created securitization trusts. These subsidiaries are Capital One Home Loans, which was acquired in February 2005; GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. ("GreenPoint"), which was acquired in December 2006 as part of the North Fork acquisition; and Chevy Chase Bank, which was acquired in February 2009 and subsequently merged into CONA.

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

Each of these subsidiaries may be required to repurchase mortgage loans in the event of certain breaches of these representations and warranties. In the event of a repurchase, the subsidiary is typically required to pay the then unpaid principal balance of the loan together with interest and certain expenses (including, in certain cases, legal costs incurred by the purchaser and/or others). The subsidiary then recovers the loan or, if the loan has been foreclosed, the underlying collateral. The subsidiary is exposed to any losses on the repurchased loans after giving effect to any recoveries on the collateral. In some instances, rather than repurchase the loans, a subsidiary may agree to make a cash payment to make an investor whole on losses or to settle repurchase claims. 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. In some cases, the amount of such losses could exceed the repurchase amount of the related loans.

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

The following table presents the original principal balance of mortgage loan originations, by vintage for 2005 through 2008, for the three general categories of purchasers of mortgage loans and the outstanding principal balance as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011:

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


	Unpaid Principal Balance
	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011		Original Unpaid Principal Balance
(Dollars in billions)	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011		Total		2008		2007		2006		2005
Government sponsored enterprises ("GSEs")⁽¹⁾	$	5	$	5	$	11	$	1	$	4	$	3	$	3
Insured Securitizations		6		6		19		0		2		8		9
Uninsured Securitizations and Other		27		30		81		3		15		30		33

Total	$	38	$	41	$	111	$	4	$	21	$	41	$	45

⁽¹⁾	GSEs include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

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

Of the $19 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 $16 billion original principal balance was placed in securitizations as to which the monoline bond insurers have made repurchase requests or loan file requests to one of our subsidiaries ("Active Insured Securitizations"), and the remaining approximately $3 billion original principal balance was placed in securitizations as to which the monoline bond insurers have not made repurchase requests or loan file requests to one of our subsidiaries ("Inactive Insured Securitizations"). Insured Securitizations often allow the monoline bond insurer to act independently of the investors. Bond insurers typically have indemnity agreements directly with both the mortgage originators and the securitizers, and they often have super-majority rights within the trust documentation that allow them to direct trustees to pursue mortgage repurchase requests without coordination with other investors.

Because we do not service most of the loans our subsidiaries sold to others, we do not have complete information about the current ownership of the $81 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 $50 billion original principal balance of these mortgage loans are currently held by private-label publicly issued securitizations not supported by bond insurance ("Uninsured Securitizations"). In contrast with the bond insurers in Insured Securitizations, investors in Uninsured Securitizations often face a number of legal and logistical hurdles before they can direct 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. An additional approximately $21 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans were initially sold to private investors as whole loans. Of this amount, we believe approximately $10 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans were ultimately purchased by GSEs. For purposes of our reserves-setting process, we consider these loans to be private-label loans rather than GSE loans. Various known and unknown investors purchased the remaining $10 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans in this category.

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 $38 billion in unpaid principal balance remains outstanding as of March 31, 2012, approximately $15 billion in losses have been realized and approximately $10 billion in unpaid principal balance is at least 90 days delinquent. 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 where necessary. These extrapolations occur on the approximately $10 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans for which we do not have complete information about the current holders or the underlying credit performance. These estimates could change as we get additional data or refine our analysis.

The subsidiaries had open repurchase requests relating to approximately $2.3 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans as of March 31, 2012, compared with $2.1 billion as of December 31, 2011. As of March 31, 2012, the majority of new repurchase demands received over the last year and, as discussed below, the majority of our $1.1 billion reserve relates to the $27 billion of original principal balance of mortgage loans originally sold to the GSEs or to Active Insured Securitizations. Currently, repurchase demands predominantly relate to the 2006 and 2007 vintages. We have received relatively few repurchase demands from the 2008 and 2009 vintages. We believe this is because GreenPoint ceased originating mortgages in August 2007.

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

Open Pipeline All Vintages (all entities)⁽¹⁾


(Dollars in millions) (All amounts are Original Principal Balance)	GSEs			Insured Securitizations			Uninsured Securitizations and Other			Total
Open claims as of December 31, 2010	$	126		$	832		$	665		$	1,623
Gross new demands received		196			359			131			686
Loans repurchased/made whole		(67	)		(14	)		(16	)		(97	)
Demands rescinded		(85	)		(6	)		(30	)		(121	)
Reclassifications⁽²⁾		6			72			(78	)		0

Open claims as of December 31, 2011	$	176		$	1,243		$	672		$	2,091

Gross new demands received		107			50			172			329
Loans repurchased/made whole		(9	)		(1	)		(22	)		(32	)
Demands rescinded		(35	)		0			(7	)		(42	)
Reclassifications⁽²⁾		0			1			(1	)		0

Open claims as of March 31, 2012	$	239		$	1,293		$	814		$	2,346

⁽¹⁾

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

⁽²⁾	Represents adjustments to correct the counterparty category as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 for amounts that were misclassified. The reclassification had no impact on the total pending repurchase requests.

We have established representation and warranty reserves for losses associated with the mortgage loans sold by each subsidiary that we consider to be both probable and reasonably estimable, including both litigation and non-litigation liabilities. These reserves are reported in our consolidated balance sheets as a component of other liabilities. The reserve setting process relies heavily on estimates, which are inherently uncertain, and requires the application of judgment. We evaluate these estimates on a quarterly basis. We build our representation and warranty reserves through the provision for repurchase losses, which we report in our consolidated statements of income as a component of non-interest income for loans originated and sold by Chevy Chase Bank and Capital One Home Loans and as a component of discontinued operations for loans originated and sold by GreenPoint. In establishing the representation and warranty reserves, we consider a variety of factors depending on the category of purchaser.

In establishing reserves for the $11 billion original principal balance of GSE loans, we rely on the historical relationship between GSE loan losses and repurchase outcomes to estimate: (1) the percentage of current and future GSE loan defaults that we anticipate will result in repurchase requests from the GSEs over the lifetime of the GSE loans; and (2) the percentage of those repurchase requests that we anticipate will result in actual repurchases. We also rely on estimated collateral valuations and loss forecast models to estimate our lifetime liability on GSE loans. This reserving approach to the GSE loans reflects the historical interaction with the GSEs around repurchase requests, and also includes anticipated repurchases resulting from mortgage insurance rescissions. The GSEs typically have stronger contractual rights than non-GSE counterparties because GSE contracts typically do not contain prompt notice requirements for repurchase requests or materiality qualifications to the representations and warranties.

Moreover, although we often disagree with the GSEs about the validity of their repurchase requests, we have established a negotiation pattern whereby the GSEs and our subsidiaries continually negotiate around individual repurchase requests, leading to the GSEs rescinding some repurchase requests and our subsidiaries agreeing in some cases to repurchase some loans or make the GSEs whole with respect to losses. Our lifetime representation and warranty reserves with respect to GSE loans are grounded in this history. Finally, as discussed in more detail below, one of our subsidiaries entered into a settlement with a GSE to resolve present and future repurchase claims in the first quarter of 2012. Our reserves allocated to the GSE segment reflect the amount of that settlement which was paid after March 31, 2012.

For the $16 billion original principal balance in Active Insured Securitizations, our reserving approach also reflects our historical interaction with monoline bond insurers around repurchase requests. Typically, monoline bond insurers allege a very high repurchase rate with respect to the mortgage loans in the Active Insured Securitization category. In response to these repurchase requests, our subsidiaries typically request information from the monoline bond insurers demonstrating that the contractual requirements around a valid repurchase request have been satisfied. In response to these requests for supporting documentation, monoline bond insurers typically initiate litigation. Accordingly, our reserves within the Active Insured Securitization segment are not based upon the historical repurchase rate with monoline bond insurers, but rather upon the expected resolution of litigation with the monoline bond insurers. Every bond insurer within this category is pursuing a substantially similar litigation strategy either through active or probable litigation. Accordingly, our representation and warranty reserves for this category are litigation reserves. In establishing litigation reserves for this category each quarter, we consider current and future losses inherent within the securitization and apply legal judgment to the actual and anticipated factual and legal record to estimate the lifetime legal liability for each securitization. Our estimated legal liability for each securitization within this category assumes that we will be responsible for only a portion of the losses inherent in each securitization. Our litigation reserves with respect to both the U.S. Bank Litigation and the DBSP Litigation, in each case as referenced below, are contained within the Active Insured Securitization reserve category. Further, our litigation reserves with respect to indemnification risks from certain representation and warranty lawsuits brought by monoline bond insurers against third-party securitizations sponsors, where GreenPoint provided some or all of the mortgage collateral within the securitization but is not a defendant in the litigation, are also contained within this category.

For the $3 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans in the Inactive Insured Securitizations category and the $81 billion original principal balance of mortgage loans in the Uninsured Securitizations and other whole loan sales categories, we establish reserves by relying on our historical activity and repurchase rates to estimate repurchase liabilities over the next twelve (12) months. We do not believe we can estimate repurchase liability for these categories for a period longer than twelve (12) months because of the relatively irregular nature of repurchase activity within these categories. Some Uninsured Securitization investors from this category who have not made repurchase requests or filed representation and warranty lawsuits are currently suing investment banks and securitization sponsors under federal and/or state securities laws. Although we face some direct and indirect indemnity risks from these litigations, we generally have not established reserves with respect to these indemnity risks because we do not consider them to be both probable and reasonably estimable liabilities.

The aggregate reserves for all three subsidiaries were $1.1 billion as of March 31, 2012, as compared with $943 million as of December 31, 2011. We recorded a total provision for repurchase losses for our representation and warranty repurchase exposure of $169 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012, primarily driven by an increased reserve associated with a settlement between a subsidiary and a GSE to resolve present and future repurchase claims. This GSE settlement accounted for $95 million of the $169 million provision. The remainder of the provision is primarily driven by certain inactive insured securitizations becoming active insured securitizations in the first quarter.

During the first quarter of 2012, we had settlements of repurchase requests totaling $11 million that were charged against the reserve. The table below summarizes changes in our representation and warranty reserves for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, and for full year 2011:

Changes in Representation and Warranty Reserves


	Three Months Ended March 31,						Full Year
(Dollars in millions)	2012			2011			2011
Representation and warranty repurchase reserve, beginning of period⁽¹⁾	$	943		$	816		$	816
Provision for repurchase losses⁽²⁾		169			44			212
Net realized losses		(11	)		(14	)		(85	)

Representation and warranty repurchase reserve, end of period⁽¹⁾	$	1,101		$	846		$	943

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

⁽²⁾

The pre-tax portion of the provision for mortgage repurchase claims recognized in our consolidated statements of income as a component of non-interest income totaled $16 million and $5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The pre-tax portion of the provision for mortgage repurchase claims recognized in our consolidated statements of income as a component of discontinued operations totaled $153 million and $39 million, for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

As indicated in the table below, most of the reserves relate to the $11 billion in original principal balance of mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs and to the $16 billion in mortgage loans sold to purchasers who placed them into Active Insured Securitizations.

Allocation of Representation and Warranty Reserves


	Reserve Liability
(Dollars in millions, except for loans sold)	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011		Loans Sold 2005 to 2008⁽¹⁾
GSEs and Active Insured Securitizations	$	927	$	778	$	27
Inactive Insured Securitizations and Others		174		165		84

Total	$	1,101	$	943	$	111

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

The adequacy of the reserves and the ultimate amount of losses incurred by our subsidiaries will depend on, among other things, actual future mortgage loan performance, the actual level of future repurchase and indemnification requests (including the extent, if any, to which Inactive Insured Securitizations and other currently inactive investors ultimately assert claims), the actual success rates of claimants, developments in litigation, actual recoveries on the collateral and macroeconomic conditions (including unemployment levels and housing prices).

As part of our business planning processes, we have considered various outcomes relating to the potential future representation and warranty liabilities of our subsidiaries that are possible but do not rise to the level of being both probable and reasonably estimable outcomes that would justify an incremental accrual under applicable accounting standards. We believe that the upper end of the reasonably possible future losses from representation and warranty claims beyond the current accrual levels, including reasonably possible future losses relating to the US Bank Litigation, DBSP Litigation and the FHLB of Boston Litigation, could be as high as $1.5 billion, which is unchanged from the estimate provided as of December 31, 2011. Notwithstanding our ongoing attempts to estimate a reasonably possible amount of loss 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 estimated upper-end of the amount of reasonably possible losses. There is still significant uncertainty regarding the numerous factors that may impact the ultimate loss levels, including, but not limited to, litigation outcomes, future repurchase claims levels, ultimate repurchase success rates and mortgage loan performance levels.

Litigation

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

For some of the matters disclosed below, we are able to determine estimates of potential future outcomes that are not probable and reasonably estimable outcomes justifying either the establishment of a reserve or an incremental reserve build, but which are reasonably possible outcomes. For other disclosed matters, such an estimate is not possible at this time. For those matters where an estimate is possible, excluding the reasonably possible future losses relating to the U.S. Bank Litigation, the DBSP Litigation, and the FHLB of Boston Litigation because reasonably possible losses with respect to those litigations are included within the range of reasonably possible representation and warranty liabilities discussed above, management currently estimates the aggregate high end of the range of possible loss is $50 million to $175 million. Notwithstanding our attempt to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss beyond our current accrual levels for some litigation matters based on current information, it is possible that actual future losses will exceed both the current accrual level and the range of reasonably possible losses disclosed here. Given the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability we may incur from these litigation matters and an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to our results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

Interchange Litigation

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the "Interchange Lawsuits") against MasterCard and Visa and several member banks, including our subsidiaries and us, alleging among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. Fact and expert discovery have closed. The parties have briefed and presented oral argument on motions to dismiss, class certification and motions for summary judgment and are awaiting decisions from the court.

The defendant banks are members of Visa U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa"). As members, our subsidiary banks have indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements of certain litigation against Visa. In the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, we reduced our Visa-related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-interest expense. We made an election in accordance with the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair value of the guarantee at December 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012 was zero. 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 any costs and liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner, on behalf of himself and other merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) against the Visa and MasterCard membership associations related to credit card interchange fees. In May 2011, another merchant, on behalf of himself and other merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards, filed a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region) asserting the same alleged violations of law related to credit card interchange fees and network rules. In April, 2012, Capital One Financial Corporation was included as a defendant, along with several other member banks, to an existing class action against Visa and MasterCard that is pending in the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal) and brought by a merchant corporation on behalf of itself and other merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards. All three class actions name Visa and MasterCard and a number of member banks, including Capital One Financial Corporation. Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), which was not named as a defendant, issues only MasterCard branded credit cards in Canada. The class action complaints allege that the associations and member banks are liable for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and unlawful interference with economic interests and violated Canadian anti-competition laws by (a) conspiring to fix supra-competitive interchange fees and merchant discounts, and (b) requiring participation in the respective networks and adherence to Visa and MasterCard Rules to acceptance of payment guarantee services.

Late Fees Litigation

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against several issuing banks, including us. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests civil monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief. In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), but not their antitrust conspiracy claims. In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial institutions. On January 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an additional order continuing the stay of the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings.

Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a dismissal entered in favor of COBNA in Rubio v. Capital One Bank, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2007. The plaintiff in Rubio alleges in a putative class action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act (the "TILA") and the UCL when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate increases. The District Court granted COBNA's motion to dismiss all claims as a matter of law prior to any discovery. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal with respect to the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, finding that COBNA was contractually allowed to increase interest rates. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied COBNA's Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. In January 2011, COBNA filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling. On April 4, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied Capital One's writ of certiorari, and as a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court to begin discovery. The parties have briefed plaintiff's motion for class certification and await oral argument before the Court.

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

Mortgage Repurchase Litigation

On February 5, 2009, GreenPoint was named as a defendant in a lawsuit commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by U.S. Bank National Association, Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly known as XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. (the "U.S. Bank Litigation"). Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that GreenPoint breached certain representations and warranties in two contracts pursuant to which GreenPoint sold approximately 30,000 mortgage loans having an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $1.8 billion to a purchaser that ultimately transferred most of these mortgage loans to a securitization trust. Some of the securities issued by the trust were insured by two of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have alleged breaches of representations and warranties with respect to certain specific mortgage loans. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order compelling GreenPoint to repurchase the entire portfolio of 30,000 mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations and warranties relating to a limited sampling of loans in the portfolio, or, alternatively, the repurchase of specific mortgage loans to which the alleged breaches of representations and warranties relate. On March 3, 2010, the Court granted GreenPoint's motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs Syncora and CIFG and denied the motion with respect to U.S. Bank. In March 2010, GreenPoint 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 April 2010, plaintiffs U.S. Bank, Syncora, and CIFG filed an amended complaint seeking, among other things, the repurchase remedies described above and indemnification for losses suffered by Syncora and CIFG. GreenPoint filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In January 2011, the Court instructed plaintiffs to seek leave of court to file an amended complaint supported by an evidentiary showing of merit. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave in June 2011, GreenPoint opposed the motion, and the court heard arguments on the motion in January 2012. On February 28, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to an amended complaint and dismissed Syncora and CIFG with prejudice. Syncora and CIFG have appealed the ruling. As noted above, GreenPoint has established reserves with respect to its probable and reasonably estimable legal liability from the U.S. Bank Lawsuit, which reserves are included within the overall representation and warranty reserve. Also as noted above, GreenPoint has exposure to loss in excess of the amount established within the overall representation and warranty reserve because GreenPoint has not established reserves with respect to the portfolio-wide repurchase claim on the basis that the claim is not considered probable and reasonably estimable. In the event GreenPoint is obligated to repurchase all 30,000 mortgage loans under the portfolio-wide repurchase claim, GreenPoint would incur the current and future economic losses inherent in the portfolio. With respect to the mortgage loan portfolio at issue in the U.S. Bank Litigation, we believe approximately $865 million of losses have been realized and approximately $276 million in mortgage loans are still outstanding, of which approximately $30 million are more than 90 days delinquent, including foreclosures and REO.

In September 2010, DB Structured Products, Inc. ("DBSP") named GreenPoint in a third-party complaint, filed in the New York County Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking indemnification (the "DBSP Litigation"). In the underlying suit, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM") sued DBSP for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made by DBSP with respect to certain residential mortgage loans that collateralize a securitization insured by AGM and sponsored by DBSP (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). DBSP purchased the HELOC loans from GreenPoint in 2006. The entire securitization is comprised of about 6,200 mortgage loans with an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $353 million. DBSP asserts that any liability it faces lies with GreenPoint, alleging that DBSP's representations and warranties to AGM are substantially similar to the representations and warranties made by GreenPoint to DBSP. GreenPoint filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in October 2010, which the court denied on July 25, 2011. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. As noted above, GreenPoint has established reserves with respect to its estimated probable and reasonable estimable legal liability from the DBSP Litigation, which reserves are included within the overall representation and warranty reserve. Also as noted above, GreenPoint has not established a reserve with respect to any portfolio-wide repurchase claim, but in the event GreenPoint is obligated to indemnify DBSP for the repurchase of all 6,200 mortgage loans, GreenPoint would incur the current and future economic losses inherent in the securitization. With respect to these loans, we believe approximately $150 million of losses have been realized and approximately $43 million in mortgage loans are still outstanding, of which approximately $2 million are more than 90 days delinquent, including foreclosures and REO.

SEC Investigation

Since July 2009, we have been providing documents and information in response to an inquiry by the Staff of the SEC. In the first quarter of 2010, the SEC issued a formal order of investigation with respect to this inquiry. Although the order, as is generally customary, authorizes a broader inquiry by the Staff, we believe that the investigation is focused largely on our method of determining the loan loss reserves for our auto finance business for certain quarterly periods in 2007. We are cooperating fully with the Staff's investigation.

Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and COBNA were named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges our practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that our methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21, 2011, the MDL court granted the motion to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. On April 18, 2011, CONA moved for reconsideration of those portions of the court's ruling denying its motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2011, CONA moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The MDL court denied the motion to reconsider on June 23, 2011, and denied the motion for interlocutory appeal on July 13, 2011. The parties have been engaged in discovery since May, 2011.

Patent Litigation

On February 23, 2011, Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (collectively, "Capital One"), were named as defendants, along with several other banks, in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by DataTreasury Corporation ("DataTreasury") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. DataTreasury alleges that Capital One and the other banks willfully infringed certain patents relating to remote image capture with centralized processing and storage. Capital One was served with the complaint on April 5, 2011, and filed an answer on May 26, 2011. On August 30, 2011, Capital One joined other defendants in filing a Motion to Transfer Venue from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. That motion was denied by the trial court on January 30, 2012. All of the defendants have sought an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the venue issue, which in currently in the briefing stage. The parties are also engaged in discovery.

FHLB Securities Litigation

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (the "FHLB of Boston") filed suit against dozens of mortgage industry participants in Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging, among other things, violations of Massachusetts state securities laws in the sale and marketing of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (the "FHLB of Boston Litigation"). Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One, National Association are named in the complaint as alleged successors in interest to Chevy Chase Bank, which allegedly marketed some of the mortgage-backed securities at issue in the litigation. The FHLB of Boston seeks rescission, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in May 2011, and plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand the matter to state court. On March 9, 2012, the court denied plaintiff's motion to remand.

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.