SEC Info℠  
    Home      Search      My Interests      Help      Sign In      Please Sign In

Bank of America Corp/DE – ‘10-K’ for 12/31/10 – ‘XML.R21’

On:  Friday, 2/25/11, at 4:27pm ET   ·   For:  12/31/10   ·   Delayed-Release:  Document/Exhibit  –  Release Delayed   ·   Accession #:  950123-11-18743   ·   File #:  1-06523

Previous ‘10-K’:  ‘10-K’ on 2/26/10 for 12/31/09   ·   Next:  ‘10-K’ on 2/23/12 for 12/31/11   ·   Latest:  ‘10-K’ on 2/20/24 for 12/31/23   ·   11 References:   

Find Words in Filings emoji
 		  in    Show  and   ↓Hints

  As Of               Filer                 Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size             Issuer                      Filing Agent

 2/25/11  Bank of America Corp/DE           10-K12/31/10  191:87M                                    Donnelley … Solutions/FA

Annual Report   —   Form 10-K   —   Sect. 13 / 15(d) – SEA’34
Filing Table of Contents

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: 10-K        Annual Report                                       HTML   6.65M 
191: COVER     ¶ Comment-Response or Cover Letter to the SEC         HTML     46K  
 2: EX-3.B      Articles of Incorporation/Organization or Bylaws    HTML    125K 
 3: EX-4.EE     Instrument Defining the Rights of Security Holders  HTML     70K 
 4: EX-4.FF     Instrument Defining the Rights of Security Holders  HTML     68K 
 5: EX-4.GG     Instrument Defining the Rights of Security Holders  HTML     63K 
 6: EX-4.HH     Instrument Defining the Rights of Security Holders  HTML     63K 
 7: EX-10.C     Material Contract                                   HTML     48K 
 9: EX-10.DDD   Material Contract                                   HTML     49K 
10: EX-10.EEE   Material Contract                                   HTML     97K 
 8: EX-10.I     Material Contract                                   HTML    252K 
11: EX-10.III   Material Contract                                   HTML     70K 
12: EX-10.JJJ   Material Contract                                   HTML    122K 
13: EX-10.KKK   Material Contract                                   HTML     83K 
14: EX-10.LLL   Material Contract                                   HTML     75K 
16: EX-21       Subsidiaries List                                   HTML    500K 
17: EX-23       Consent of Experts or Counsel                       HTML     49K 
18: EX-24.A     Power of Attorney                                   HTML     56K 
19: EX-24.B     Power of Attorney                                   HTML     49K 
15: EX-12       Statement re: Computation of Ratios                 HTML     58K 
20: EX-31.A     Certification -- §302 - SOA'02                      HTML     50K 
21: EX-31.B     Certification -- §302 - SOA'02                      HTML     50K 
22: EX-32.A     Certification -- §906 - SOA'02                      HTML     46K 
23: EX-32.B     Certification -- §906 - SOA'02                      HTML     46K 
143: XML         IDEA XML File -- Definitions and References          XML    986K  
169: XML         IDEA XML File -- Filing Summary                      XML   1.32M  
160: XML.R1      Document and Entity Information                      XML    236K  
161: XML.R2      Consolidated Statement of Income                     XML    729K  
91: XML.R3      Consolidated Balance Sheet                           XML   1.13M 
107: XML.R4      Consolidated Balance Sheet (Parenthetical)           XML    439K  
140: XML.R5      Consolidated Statement of Changes in Shareholders'   XML   1.57M  
                Equity                                                           
134: XML.R6      Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows                 XML    734K  
179: XML.R7      Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows                 XML    331K  
                (Parenthetical)                                                  
54: XML.R8      Summary of Significant Accounting Principles         XML    173K 
133: XML.R9      Merger and Restructuring Activity                    XML    144K  
47: XML.R10     Trading Account Assets and Liabilities               XML     89K 
46: XML.R11     Derivatives                                          XML    601K 
90: XML.R12     Securities                                           XML    515K 
152: XML.R13     Outstanding Loans and Leases                         XML    521K  
95: XML.R14     Allowance for Credit Losses                          XML    172K 
100: XML.R15     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML    682K  
                Entities                                                         
125: XML.R16     Representations and Warranties Obligations and       XML    172K  
                Corporate Guarantees                                             
188: XML.R17     Goodwill and Intangible Assets                       XML    117K  
78: XML.R18     Deposits                                             XML     95K 
30: XML.R19     Federal Funds Sold, Securities Borrowed or           XML    124K 
                Purchased Under Agreements to Resell and                         
                Short-term Borrowings                                            
105: XML.R20     Long-term Debt                                       XML    389K  
149: XML.R21     Commitments and Contingencies                        XML    257K  
62: XML.R22     Shareholders' Equity                                 XML    181K 
141: XML.R23     Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income               XML    129K  
101: XML.R24     Earnings Per Common Share                            XML    111K  
178: XML.R25     Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions             XML    127K  
155: XML.R26     Employee Benefit Plans                               XML    599K  
111: XML.R27     Stock Based Compensation Plans                       XML    112K  
126: XML.R28     Income Taxes                                         XML    222K  
45: XML.R29     Fair Value Measurements                              XML    833K 
50: XML.R30     Fair Value Option                                    XML    185K 
66: XML.R31     Fair Value of Financial Instruments                  XML     90K 
85: XML.R32     Mortgage Servicing Rights                            XML    119K 
124: XML.R33     Business Segment Information                         XML    396K  
154: XML.R34     Parent Company Information                           XML    177K  
37: XML.R35     Performance By Geographic Area                       XML    122K 
55: XML.R36     Summary of Significant Accounting Principles         XML    100K 
                (Policies)                                                       
164: XML.R37     Merger and Restructuring Activity (Tables)           XML    155K  
176: XML.R38     Trading Account Assets and Liabilities (Tables)      XML     87K  
113: XML.R39     Derivatives (Tables)                                 XML    606K  
185: XML.R40     Securities (Tables)                                  XML    544K  
56: XML.R41     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Tables)                XML    559K 
187: XML.R42     Allowance for Credit Losses (Tables)                 XML    175K  
70: XML.R43     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML    690K 
                Entities (Tables)                                                
33: XML.R44     Representations and Warranties Obligations and       XML    154K 
                Corporate Guarantees (Tables)                                    
67: XML.R45     Goodwill and Intangible Assets (Tables)              XML    106K 
148: XML.R46     Deposits (Tables)                                    XML     99K  
174: XML.R47     Federal Funds Sold, Securities Borrowed or           XML    121K  
                Purchased Under Agreements to Resell and                         
                Short-term Borrowings (Tables)                                   
98: XML.R48     Long-term Debt (Tables)                              XML    389K 
73: XML.R49     Commitments and Contingencies (Tables)               XML    125K 
123: XML.R50     Shareholder's Equity (Tables)                        XML    163K  
43: XML.R51     Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Tables)      XML    126K 
129: XML.R52     Earnings Per Common Share (Tables)                   XML    106K  
76: XML.R53     Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions (Tables)    XML    112K 
53: XML.R54     Employee Benefit Plans (Tables)                      XML    645K 
172: XML.R55     Stock-Based Compensation Plans (Tables)              XML    109K  
166: XML.R56     Income Taxes (Tables)                                XML    246K  
89: XML.R57     Fair Value Measurements (Tables)                     XML    837K 
60: XML.R58     Fair Value Option (Tables)                           XML    145K 
157: XML.R59     Fair Value of Financial Instruments (Tables)         XML     85K  
49: XML.R60     Mortage Servicing Rights (Tables)                    XML    129K 
135: XML.R61     Business Segment Information (Tables)                XML    394K  
130: XML.R62     Parent Company Information (Tables)                  XML    189K  
165: XML.R63     Performance by Geographical Area (Tables)            XML    121K  
159: XML.R64     Summary of Significant Accounting Principles         XML    958K  
                (Details)                                                        
181: XML.R65     Merger and Restructuring Activity (Details)          XML    215K  
58: XML.R66     Merger and Restructuring Activity (Details 1)        XML    504K 
88: XML.R67     Merger and Restructuring Activity (Details 2)        XML    132K 
119: XML.R68     Merger and Restructuring Activity (Details 3)        XML    318K  
103: XML.R69     Merger and Restructuring Activity (Details           XML    446K  
                Textuals)                                                        
122: XML.R70     Trading Account Assets and Liabilities (Details)     XML    511K  
186: XML.R71     Derivatives (Details)                                XML   7.25M  
59: XML.R72     Derivatives (Details 1)                              XML    426K 
71: XML.R73     Derivatives (Details 2)                              XML    517K 
65: XML.R74     Derivatives (Details Textuals)                       XML    479K 
115: XML.R75     Securities (Details)                                 XML   3.66M  
128: XML.R76     Securities (Details 1)                               XML   4.67M  
110: XML.R77     Securities (Details 2)                               XML    478K  
99: XML.R78     Securities (Details 3)                               XML    120K 
57: XML.R79     Securities (Details 4)                               XML    182K 
35: XML.R80     Securities (Details Textuals)                        XML   1.40M 
117: XML.R81     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details)               XML   1.82M  
87: XML.R82     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 1)             XML    410K 
109: XML.R83     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 2)             XML   2.61M  
145: XML.R84     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 3)             XML    554K  
139: XML.R85     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 4)             XML    230K  
80: XML.R86     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 5)             XML    858K 
151: XML.R87     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 6)             XML    720K  
136: XML.R88     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 7)             XML    218K  
64: XML.R89     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details 8)             XML    130K 
97: XML.R90     Outstanding Loans and Leases (Details Textuals)      XML   1.28M 
138: XML.R91     Allowance for Credit Losses (Details 1)              XML    615K  
77: XML.R92     Allowance for Credit Losses (Details 2)              XML   1.32M 
156: XML.R93     Allowance for Credit Losses (Details Textuals)       XML    260K  
83: XML.R94     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML   1.20M 
                Entities (Details 1)                                             
144: XML.R95     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML   3.44M  
                Entities (Details 2)                                             
118: XML.R96     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML   3.95M  
                Entities (Details 3)                                             
36: XML.R97     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML   1.44M 
                Entities (Details 4)                                             
81: XML.R98     Securitizations and Other Variable Interest          XML   1.27M 
                Entities (Details Textuals)                                      
150: XML.R99     Representations and Warranties Obligations and       XML    540K  
                Corporate Guarantees (Details)                                   
51: XML.R100    Representations and Warranties Obligations and       XML    480K 
                Corporate Guarantees (Details 1)                                 
112: XML.R101    Representations and Warranties Obligations and       XML    360K  
                Corporate Guarantees (Details Textuals)                          
127: XML.R102    Goodwill and Intangible Assets (Details 1)           XML    544K  
163: XML.R103    Goodwill and Intangible Assets (Details 2)           XML    345K  
190: XML.R104    Goodwill and Intangible Assets (Details Textuals)    XML    482K  
74: XML.R105    Deposits (Details)                                   XML    475K 
38: XML.R106    Federal Funds Sold, Securities Borrowed or           XML    793K 
                Purchased Under Agreements to Resell and                         
                Short-term Borrowings (Details)                                  
79: XML.R107    Long-term Debt (Details)                             XML   2.11M 
86: XML.R108    Long-term Debt (Details 1)                           XML    732K 
48: XML.R109    Long-term Debt (Details 2)                           XML   7.81M 
171: XML.R110    Long-Term Debt (Details Textuals)                    XML    635K  
168: XML.R111    Commitments and Contingencies (Details)              XML   9.96M  
42: XML.R112    Shareholder's Equity (Details)                       XML   3.04M 
92: XML.R113    Shareholders Equity (Details Textuals)               XML   1.21M 
108: XML.R114    Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Details)     XML    756K  
142: XML.R115    Earnings Per Common Share (Details 1)                XML    179K  
44: XML.R116    Earnings Per Common Share (Details 2)                XML    166K 
180: XML.R117    Earnings Per Common Share (Details Textual)          XML    242K  
120: XML.R118    Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions (Details)   XML    472K  
104: XML.R119    Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions (Details    XML    493K  
                Textuals)                                                        
41: XML.R120    Employee Benefit Plans (Details)                     XML    651K 
147: XML.R121    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 1)                   XML   1.15M  
131: XML.R122    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 2)                   XML   1.19M  
82: XML.R123    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 3)                   XML    860K 
72: XML.R124    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 4)                   XML    408K 
96: XML.R125    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 5)                   XML    495K 
183: XML.R126    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 6)                   XML    370K  
114: XML.R127    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 7)                   XML   1.94M  
116: XML.R128    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 8)                   XML    803K  
158: XML.R129    Employee Benefit Plans (Details 9)                   XML    373K  
132: XML.R130    Employee Benefit Plans (Details Textuals)            XML   1.31M  
32: XML.R131    Stock-Based Compensation Plans (Details)             XML    560K 
162: XML.R132    Stock-Based Compensation Plans (Details 1)           XML    812K  
68: XML.R133    Income Taxes (Details)                               XML   2.87M 
94: XML.R134    Fair Value Measurements (Details 1)                  XML   8.81M 
121: XML.R135    Fair Value Measurements (Details 2)                  XML   2.45M  
106: XML.R136    Fair Value Measurements (Details 3)                  XML    740K  
182: XML.R137    Fair Value Measurements (Details 4)                  XML   1.92M  
69: XML.R138    Fair Value Measurements (Details 5)                  XML    774K 
52: XML.R139    Fair Value Measurements (Details 6)                  XML    249K 
189: XML.R140    Fair Value Measurements (Details Textuals)           XML    541K  
175: XML.R141    Fair Value Option (Details)                          XML   1.52M  
93: XML.R142    Fair Value Option (Details 1)                        XML    520K 
31: XML.R143    Fair Value Option (Details Textuals)                 XML     87K 
167: XML.R144    Fair Value of Financial Instruments (Details)        XML    210K  
177: XML.R145    Mortage Servicing Rights (Details)                   XML    223K  
39: XML.R146    Mortgage Servicing Rights (Details 1)                XML    163K 
75: XML.R147    Mortgage Servicing Rights (Details 2)                XML    309K 
102: XML.R148    Mortgage Servicing Rights (Details Textuals)         XML     78K  
184: XML.R149    Business Segment Information (Details)               XML   1.40M  
63: XML.R150    Business Segment Information (Details 1)             XML   1.76M 
84: XML.R151    Business Segment Information (Details 2)             XML    626K 
137: XML.R152    Business Segment Information (Details 3)             XML    331K  
40: XML.R153    Parent Company Information (Details)                 XML    428K 
34: XML.R154    Parent Company Information (Details 1)               XML    551K 
146: XML.R155    Parent Company Information (Details 2)               XML    573K  
61: XML.R156    Performance by Geographical Area (Details)           XML    629K 
173: XML.R157    Performance by Geographical Area (Details            XML    244K  
                Textuals)                                                        
170: EXCEL       IDEA Workbook of Financial Reports (.xls)            XLS  11.72M  
24: EX-101.INS  XBRL Instance -- bac-20101231                        XML  17.41M 
26: EX-101.CAL  XBRL Calculations -- bac-20101231_cal                XML    381K 
29: EX-101.DEF  XBRL Definitions -- bac-20101231_def                 XML   3.49M 
27: EX-101.LAB  XBRL Labels -- bac-20101231_lab                      XML   5.83M 
28: EX-101.PRE  XBRL Presentations -- bac-20101231_pre               XML   4.32M 
25: EX-101.SCH  XBRL Schema -- bac-20101231                          XSD   1.11M 
153: ZIP         XBRL Zipped Folder -- 0000950123-11-018743-xbrl      Zip   1.02M

‘XML.R21’   —   Commitments and Contingencies

This Financial Report is an XBRL XML File.

                                                                                                                                                                                
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<InstanceReport xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<Version> 2.2.0.25 </Version>
<hasSegments> false </hasSegments>
<hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios>
<ReportLongName> 0214 - Disclosure - Commitments and Contingencies </ReportLongName>
<DisplayLabelColumn> true </DisplayLabelColumn>
<ShowElementNames> false </ShowElementNames>
<RoundingOption/>
<HasEmbeddedReports> false </HasEmbeddedReports>
<Columns>
<Column>
<Id> 1 </Id>
<IsAbstractGroupTitle> false </IsAbstractGroupTitle>
<LabelColumn> false </LabelColumn>
<CurrencyCode> USD </CurrencyCode>
<FootnoteIndexer/>
<hasSegments> false </hasSegments>
<hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios>
<MCU>
<KeyName> 1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010 USD ($) USD ($) / shares </KeyName>
<CurrencySymbol> $ </CurrencySymbol>
<contextRef>
<ContextID> Jan-01-2010_Dec-31-2010 </ContextID>
<EntitySchema> http://www.sec.gov/CIK </EntitySchema>
<EntityValue> 0000070858 </EntityValue>
<PeriodDisplayName/>
<PeriodType> duration </PeriodType>
<PeriodStartDate> 2010-01-01T00:00:00 </PeriodStartDate>
<PeriodEndDate> 2010-12-31T00:00:00 </PeriodEndDate>
<Segments/>
<Scenarios/>
</contextRef>
<UPS>
<UnitProperty>
<UnitID> USD </UnitID>
<UnitType> Standard </UnitType>
<StandardMeasure>
<MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 </MeasureSchema>
<MeasureValue> USD </MeasureValue>
<MeasureNamespace> iso4217 </MeasureNamespace>
</StandardMeasure>
<Scale> 0 </Scale>
</UnitProperty>
<UnitProperty>
<UnitID> Shares </UnitID>
<UnitType> Standard </UnitType>
<StandardMeasure>
<MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance </MeasureSchema>
<MeasureValue> shares </MeasureValue>
<MeasureNamespace> xbrli </MeasureNamespace>
</StandardMeasure>
<Scale> 0 </Scale>
</UnitProperty>
<UnitProperty>
<UnitID> Pure </UnitID>
<UnitType> Standard </UnitType>
<StandardMeasure>
<MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance </MeasureSchema>
<MeasureValue> pure </MeasureValue>
<MeasureNamespace> xbrli </MeasureNamespace>
</StandardMeasure>
<Scale> 0 </Scale>
</UnitProperty>
<UnitProperty>
<UnitID> USDEPS </UnitID>
<UnitType> Divide </UnitType>
<NumeratorMeasure>
<MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 </MeasureSchema>
<MeasureValue> USD </MeasureValue>
<MeasureNamespace> iso4217 </MeasureNamespace>
</NumeratorMeasure>
<DenominatorMeasure>
<MeasureSchema> http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance </MeasureSchema>
<MeasureValue> shares </MeasureValue>
<MeasureNamespace> xbrli </MeasureNamespace>
</DenominatorMeasure>
<Scale> 0 </Scale>
</UnitProperty>
</UPS>
<CurrencyCode> USD </CurrencyCode>
<OriginalCurrencyCode> USD </OriginalCurrencyCode>
</MCU>
<CurrencySymbol> $ </CurrencySymbol>
<Labels>
<Label Id="1" Label="12 Months Ended"/>
<Label Id="2" Label="Dec. 31, 2010"/>
</Labels>
</Column>
</Columns>
<Rows>
<Row>
<Id> 2 </Id>
<IsAbstractGroupTitle> true </IsAbstractGroupTitle>
<Level> 0 </Level>
<ElementName> bac_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract </ElementName>
<ElementPrefix> bac </ElementPrefix>
<IsBaseElement> false </IsBaseElement>
<BalanceType> na </BalanceType>
<PeriodType> duration </PeriodType>
<ShortDefinition> Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]. </ShortDefinition>
<IsReportTitle> false </IsReportTitle>
<IsSegmentTitle> false </IsSegmentTitle>
<IsSubReportEnd> false </IsSubReportEnd>
<IsCalendarTitle> false </IsCalendarTitle>
<IsTuple> false </IsTuple>
<IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow> false </IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow>
<IsEquityAdjustmentRow> false </IsEquityAdjustmentRow>
<IsBeginningBalance> false </IsBeginningBalance>
<IsEndingBalance> false </IsEndingBalance>
<IsReverseSign> false </IsReverseSign>
<PreferredLabelRole/>
<FootnoteIndexer/>
<Cells>
<Cell>
<Id> 1 </Id>
<IsNumeric> false </IsNumeric>
<IsRatio> false </IsRatio>
<DisplayZeroAsNone> false </DisplayZeroAsNone>
<NumericAmount> 0 </NumericAmount>
<RoundedNumericAmount> 0 </RoundedNumericAmount>
<NonNumbericText/>
<NonNumericTextHeader/>
<FootnoteIndexer/>
<CurrencyCode/>
<CurrencySymbol/>
<IsIndependantCurrency> false </IsIndependantCurrency>
<ShowCurrencySymbol> false </ShowCurrencySymbol>
<DisplayDateInUSFormat> false </DisplayDateInUSFormat>
<hasSegments> false </hasSegments>
<hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios>
</Cell>
</Cells>
<OriginalInstanceReportColumns/>
<Unit> Other </Unit>
<ElementDataType> xbrli:stringItemType </ElementDataType>
<SimpleDataType> string </SimpleDataType>
<ElementDefenition> Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]. </ElementDefenition>
<IsTotalLabel> false </IsTotalLabel>
<IsEPS> false </IsEPS>
<Label> Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] </Label>
</Row>
<Row>
<Id> 3 </Id>
<IsAbstractGroupTitle> false </IsAbstractGroupTitle>
<Level> 0 </Level>
<ElementName> us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock </ElementName>
<ElementPrefix> us-gaap </ElementPrefix>
<IsBaseElement> true </IsBaseElement>
<BalanceType> na </BalanceType>
<PeriodType> duration </PeriodType>
<ShortDefinition> No definition available. </ShortDefinition>
<IsReportTitle> false </IsReportTitle>
<IsSegmentTitle> false </IsSegmentTitle>
<IsSubReportEnd> false </IsSubReportEnd>
<IsCalendarTitle> false </IsCalendarTitle>
<IsTuple> false </IsTuple>
<IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow> false </IsEquityPrevioslyReportedAsRow>
<IsEquityAdjustmentRow> false </IsEquityAdjustmentRow>
<IsBeginningBalance> false </IsBeginningBalance>
<IsEndingBalance> false </IsEndingBalance>
<IsReverseSign> false </IsReverseSign>
<PreferredLabelRole> verboselabel </PreferredLabelRole>
<FootnoteIndexer/>
<Cells>
<Cell>
<Id> 1 </Id>
<IsNumeric> false </IsNumeric>
<IsRatio> false </IsRatio>
<DisplayZeroAsNone> false </DisplayZeroAsNone>
<NumericAmount> 0 </NumericAmount>
<RoundedNumericAmount> 0 </RoundedNumericAmount>
<NonNumbericText>
<!--DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" --> <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note 14 - us-gaap:CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock--> <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">NOTE 14 <font style="color: #ce1126">Commitments and Contingencies</font></font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In the normal course of business, the Corporation enters into a number of off-balance sheet commitments. These commitments expose the Corporation to varying degrees of credit and market risk and are subject to the same credit and market risk limitation reviews as those instruments recorded on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Credit Extension Commitments</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation enters into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, SBLCs and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The table below shows the notional amount of unfunded legally binding lending commitments net of amounts distributed (e.g., syndicated) to other financial institutions of $23.3 billion and $30.9 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009. At December 31, 2010, the carrying amount of these commitments, excluding commitments accounted for under the fair value option, was $1.2 billion, including deferred revenue of $29 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $1.2 billion. At December 31, 2009, the comparable amounts were $1.5 billion, $34 million and $1.5 billion, respectively. The carrying amount of these commitments is classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The table below also includes the notional amount of commitments of $27.3 billion and $27.0 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009, that are accounted for under the fair value option. However, the table below excludes fair value adjustments of $866 million and $950 million on these commitments, which are classified in accrued expenses and other liabilities. For information regarding the Corporation’s loan commitments accounted for under the fair value option, see <i>Note 23 – Fair Value Option.</i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div style="font-size: 0pt; margin-left: 0%; width: 100%; align: left; border-bottom: 1pt solid #ce1126"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <table border="0" width="100%" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent; text-align: left"> <!-- Table Width Row BEGIN --> <tr style="font-size: 1pt" valign="bottom"> <td width="62%"> </td><!-- colindex=01 type=maindata --> <td width="1%"> </td><!-- colindex=02 type=gutter --> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=02 type=lead --> <td width="4%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=02 type=body --> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td><!-- colindex=02 type=hang1 --> <td width="1%"> </td><!-- colindex=03 type=gutter --> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=03 type=lead --> <td width="5%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=03 type=body --> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td><!-- colindex=03 type=hang1 --> <td width="1%"> </td><!-- colindex=04 type=gutter --> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=04 type=lead --> <td width="5%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=04 type=body --> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td><!-- colindex=04 type=hang1 --> <td width="1%"> </td><!-- colindex=05 type=gutter --> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=05 type=lead --> <td width="5%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=05 type=body --> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td><!-- colindex=05 type=hang1 --> <td width="1%"> </td><!-- colindex=06 type=gutter --> <td width="1%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=06 type=lead --> <td width="4%" align="right"> </td><!-- colindex=06 type=body --> <td width="1%" align="left"> </td><!-- colindex=06 type=hang1 --> </tr> <!-- Table Width Row END --> <!-- TableOutputHead --> <tr style="font-size: 6pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="18" align="center" valign="bottom"> <b>December 31, 2010</b> </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 6pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126"> <b>Expire after 1<br /> </b> </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126"> <b>Expire after 3<br /> </b> </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 6pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Expire in 1<br /> </b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Year through<br /> </b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Years through<br /> </b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Expire after 5<br /> </b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 6pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <font style="font-size: 7pt">(Dollars in millions) </font> </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Year or Less</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>3 Years</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>5 Years</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Years</b> </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="2" nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b>Total</b> </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <!-- TableOutputBody --> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -7pt; margin-left: 7pt"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">Notional amount of credit extension commitments</font></b> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Loan commitments </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">152,926</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">144,461</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">43,465</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">16,172</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">357,024</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Home equity lines of credit </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">1,722</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">4,290</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">18,207</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">55,886</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">80,105</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees <sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: top">(1)</sup> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">35,275</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">18,940</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">4,144</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">5,897</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">64,256</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Letters of credit </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">3,698</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">110</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">–</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">874</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">4,682</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 1pt"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 18pt"> Legally binding commitments </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">193,621</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">167,801</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">65,816</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">78,829</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">506,067</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Credit card lines <sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: top">(2)</sup> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">497,068</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">–</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">–</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">–</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">497,068</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 1pt"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 18pt"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">Total credit extension commitments</font></b> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">690,689</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">167,801</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">65,816</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">78,829</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">$</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">1,003,135</font></b> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 1pt"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom" style="line-height: 6pt"> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <!-- TableOutputHead --> <tr style="font-size: 6pt" valign="bottom" align="center"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td colspan="18" align="center" valign="bottom"> December 31, 2009 </td> <td>   </td> </tr> <!-- TableOutputBody --> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">Notional amount of credit extension commitments</font></b> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Loan commitments </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 149,248 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 187,585 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 30,897 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 28,488 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 396,218 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Home equity lines of credit </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 1,810 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 3,272 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 10,667 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 76,923 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 92,672 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees <sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: top">(1)</sup> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 29,794 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 21,285 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 4,923 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 13,740 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 69,742 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Letters of credit </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 2,020 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 40 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> – </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 1,467 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 3,527 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 1pt"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 18pt"> Legally binding commitments </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 182,872 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 212,182 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 46,487 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 120,618 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 562,159 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 6pt"> Credit card lines <sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: top">(2)</sup> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 541,919 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> – </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> – </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> – </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 541,919 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 1pt"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> <tr valign="bottom"> <td align="left" valign="top"> <div style="text-indent: -6pt; margin-left: 18pt"> <b><font style="font-size: 6pt">Total credit extension commitments</font></b> </div> </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 724,791 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 212,182 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 46,487 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 120,618 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> <td>   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom"> $ </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom"> 1,104,078 </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom">   </td> </tr> <tr style="font-size: 1pt"> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="right" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" align="left" valign="bottom" style="border-top: 1px solid #ce1126">   </td> </tr> </table> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> </div> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent; text-align: left"> <tr> <td width="1%"></td> <td width="1%"></td> <td width="98%"></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> <font style="font-size: 6pt"><sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: top">(1)</sup></font></td> <td></td> <td valign="bottom" style="text-align:justify"> <font style="font-size: 6pt">The notional amounts of SBLCs and financial guarantees classified as investment grade and non-investment grade based on the credit quality of the underlying reference name within the instrument were $41.1 billion and $22.4 billion at December 31, 2010 and $39.7 billion and $30.0 billion at December 31, 2009. </font></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> <font style="font-size: 6pt"><sup style="font-size: 85%; vertical-align: top">(2)</sup></font></td> <td></td> <td valign="bottom" style="text-align:justify"> <font style="font-size: 6pt">Includes business card unused lines of credit. </font></td> </tr> </table> <div style="margin-top: 6pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Legally binding commitments to extend credit generally have specified rates and maturities. Certain of these commitments have adverse change clauses that help to protect the Corporation against deterioration in the borrower’s ability to pay. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Other Commitments</font></b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 11pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Global Principal Investments and Other Equity Investments</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Corporation had unfunded equity investment commitments of approximately $1.5 billion and $2.8 billion. In light of proposed Basel regulatory capital changes related to unfunded commitments, the Corporation has actively reduced these commitments in a series of transactions involving its private equity fund investments. For more information on these Basel regulatory capital changes, see <i>Note 18 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions</i>. In 2010, the Corporation completed the sale of its exposure to certain private equity funds. For more information on these transactions, see <i>Note 5 – Securities</i>. These commitments generally relate to the Corporation’s Global Principal Investments business which is comprised of a diversified portfolio of investments in private equity, real estate and other alternative investments. These investments are made either directly in a company or held through a fund. </div> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak Begin --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="right" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <font style="font-size: 7pt"> </font> <b> <font style="font-size: 8pt"> </font> </b> </div> </div> <!-- END PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- PAGEBREAK --> <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <!-- BEGIN PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak End --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-top: 12pt; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Loan Purchases</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In 2005, the Corporation entered into an agreement for the committed purchase of retail automotive loans over a five-year period that ended on June 22, 2010. Under this agreement, the Corporation purchased $6.6 billion of such loans during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and also the year ended December 31, 2009. All loans purchased under this agreement were subject to a comprehensive set of credit criteria. This agreement was accounted for as a derivative liability with a fair value of $189 million at December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2010, the Corporation was no longer committed for any additional purchases. As part of this agreement, the Corporation recorded a liability which may increase or decrease based on credit performance of the purchased loans over a period extending through 2016. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Corporation had other commitments to purchase loans (e.g., residential mortgage and commercial real estate) of $2.6 billion and $2.2 billion, which upon settlement will be included in loans or LHFS. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Operating Leases</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation is a party to operating leases for certain of its premises and equipment. Commitments under these leases are approximately $3.0 billion, $2.6 billion, $2.1 billion, $1.6 billion and $1.3 billion for 2011 through 2015, respectively, and $6.6 billion in the aggregate for all years thereafter. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Other Commitments</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated resale and securities borrowing agreements of $39.4 billion and $51.8 billion. In addition, the Corporation had commitments to enter into forward-dated repurchase and securities lending agreements of $33.5 billion and $58.3 billion. All of these commitments expire within the next 12 months. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation has entered into agreements with providers of market data, communications, systems consulting and other office-related services. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the minimum fee commitments over the remaining terms of these agreements totaled $2.1 billion and $2.3 billion. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Other Guarantees</font></b> </div> <div style="margin-top: 11pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Bank-owned Life Insurance Book Value Protection</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection to insurance carriers who offer group life insurance policies to corporations, primarily banks. The book value protection is provided on portfolios of intermediate investment-grade fixed-income securities and is intended to cover any shortfall in the event that policyholders surrender their policies and market value is below book value. To manage its exposure, the Corporation imposes significant restrictions on surrenders and the manner in which the portfolio is liquidated and the funds are accessed. In addition, investment parameters of the underlying portfolio are restricted. These constraints, combined with structural protections, including a cap on the amount of risk assumed on each policy, are designed to provide adequate buffers and guard against payments even under extreme stress scenarios. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $15.8 billion and $15.6 billion and the Corporation’s maximum exposure related to these guarantees totaled $5.0 billion and $4.9 billion with estimated maturity dates between 2030 and 2040. As of December 31, 2010, the Corporation has not made a payment under these products. The probability of surrender has increased due to the deteriorating financial health of policyholders, but remains a small percentage of total notional. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Employee Retirement Protection</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection primarily to plan sponsors of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governed pension plans, such as 401(k) plans and 457 plans. The book value protection is provided on portfolios of intermediate/short-term investment-grade fixed-income securities and is intended to cover any shortfall in the event that plan participants continue to withdraw funds after all securities have been liquidated and there is remaining book value. The Corporation retains the option to exit the contract at any time. If the Corporation exercises its option, the purchaser can require the Corporation to purchase high quality fixed-income securities, typically government or government-backed agency securities, with the proceeds of the liquidated assets to assure the return of principal. To manage its exposure, the Corporation imposes significant restrictions and constraints on the timing of the withdrawals, the manner in which the portfolio is liquidated and the funds are accessed, and the investment parameters of the underlying portfolio. These constraints, combined with structural protections, are designed to provide adequate buffers and guard against payments even under extreme stress scenarios. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $33.8 billion and $36.8 billion with estimated maturity dates up to 2014 if the exit option is exercised on all deals. As of December 31, 2010, the Corporation has not made a payment under these products and has assessed the probability of payments under these guarantees as remote. </div> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak Begin --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-size: 8pt"> </font> </b> <font style="font-size: 7pt"> </font> </div> </div> <!-- END PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- PAGEBREAK --> <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <!-- BEGIN PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak End --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-top: 12pt; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Indemnifications</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation enters into various agreements that contain indemnifications, such as tax indemnifications, whereupon payment may become due if certain external events occur, such as a change in tax law. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and were entered into in the normal course of business based on an assessment that the risk of loss would be remote. These agreements typically contain an early termination clause that permits the Corporation to exit the agreement upon these events. The maximum potential future payment under indemnification agreements is difficult to assess for several reasons, including the occurrence of an external event, the inability to predict future changes in tax and other laws, the difficulty in determining how such laws would apply to parties in contracts, the absence of exposure limits contained in standard contract language and the timing of the early termination clause. Historically, any payments made under these guarantees have been de minimis. The Corporation has assessed the probability of making such payments in the future as remote. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Merchant Services</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On June 26, 2009, the Corporation contributed its merchant processing business to a joint venture in exchange for a 46.5 percent ownership interest in the joint venture. During the second quarter of 2010, the joint venture purchased the interest held by one of the three initial investors bringing the Corporation’s ownership interest up to 49 percent. For additional information on the joint venture agreement, see <i>Note 5 – Securities</i>. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, on behalf of the joint venture, provides credit and debit card processing services to various merchants by processing credit and debit card transactions on the merchants’ behalf. In connection with these services, a liability may arise in the event of a billing dispute between the merchant and a cardholder that is ultimately resolved in the cardholder’s favor and the merchant defaults on its obligation to reimburse the cardholder. A cardholder, through its issuing bank, generally has until the later of up to six months after the date a transaction is processed or the delivery of the product or service to present a chargeback to the joint venture as the merchant processor. If the joint venture is unable to collect this amount from the merchant, it bears the loss for the amount paid to the cardholder. The joint venture is primarily liable for any losses on transactions from the contributed portfolio that occur after June 26, 2009. However, if the joint venture fails to meet its obligation to reimburse the cardholder for disputed transactions, then the Corporation could be held liable for the disputed amount. In 2010 and 2009, the joint venture processed and settled $265.5 billion and $250.0 billion of transactions and it recorded losses of $17 million and $26 million. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Corporation, on behalf of the joint venture, held as collateral $25 million and $26 million of merchant escrow deposits which may be used to offset amounts due from the individual merchants. The joint venture also has the right to offset any payments with cash flows otherwise due to the merchant. Accordingly, the Corporation believes that the maximum potential exposure is not representative of the actual potential loss exposure. The Corporation believes the maximum potential exposure for chargebacks would not exceed the total amount of merchant transactions processed through Visa and MasterCard for the last six months, which represents the claim period for the cardholder, plus any outstanding delayed-delivery transactions. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the maximum potential exposure totaled approximately $139.5 billion and $131.0 billion. The Corporation does not expect to make material payments in connection with these guarantees. The maximum potential exposure disclosed does not include volumes processed by First Data contributed portfolios. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Other Derivative Contracts</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation funds selected assets, including securities issued by CDOs and CLOs, through derivative contracts, typically total return swaps, with third parties and SPEs that are not consolidated on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the total notional amount of these derivative contracts was approximately $4.3 billion and $4.9 billion with commercial banks and $1.7 billion and $2.8 billion with SPEs. The underlying securities are senior securities and substantially all of the Corporation’s exposures are insured. Accordingly, the Corporation’s exposure to loss consists principally of counterparty risk to the insurers. In certain circumstances, generally as a result of ratings downgrades, the Corporation may be required to purchase the underlying assets, which would not result in additional gain or loss to the Corporation as such exposure is already reflected in the fair value of the derivative contracts. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Other Guarantees</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation sells products that guarantee the return of principal to investors at a preset future date. These guarantees cover a broad range of underlying asset classes and are designed to cover the shortfall between the market value of the underlying portfolio and the principal amount on the preset future date. To manage its exposure, the Corporation requires that these guarantees be backed by structural and investment constraints and certain pre-defined triggers that would require the underlying assets or portfolio to be liquidated and invested in zero-coupon bonds that mature at the preset future date. The Corporation is required to fund any shortfall between the proceeds of the liquidated assets and the purchase price of the zero-coupon bonds at the preset future date. These guarantees are recorded as derivatives and carried at fair value in the trading portfolio. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $666 million and $2.1 billion. These guarantees have various maturities ranging from two to five years. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products and has assessed the probability of payments under these guarantees as remote. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation has entered into additional guarantee agreements and commitments, including lease-end obligation agreements, partial credit guarantees on certain leases, real estate joint venture guarantees, sold risk participation swaps, divested business commitments and sold put options that require gross settlement. The maximum potential future payment under these agreements was approximately $3.4 billion and $3.6 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009. The estimated maturity dates of these obligations extend up to 2033. The Corporation has made no material payments under these guarantees. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In addition, the Corporation has guaranteed the payment obligations of certain subsidiaries of Merrill Lynch on certain derivative transactions. The aggregate notional amount of such derivative liabilities was approximately $2.1 billion and $2.5 billion at December 31, 2010 and 2009. In the normal course of business, the Corporation periodically guarantees the obligations of its affiliates in a variety of transactions including ISDA-related transactions and non ISDA-related transactions such as commodities trading, repurchase agreements, prime brokerage agreements and other transactions. </div> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak Begin --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="right" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <font style="font-size: 7pt"> </font> <b> <font style="font-size: 8pt"> </font> </b> </div> </div> <!-- END PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- PAGEBREAK --> <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <!-- BEGIN PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak End --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-top: 12pt; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Payment Protection Insurance Claims Matter</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In the U.K., the Corporation sells payment protection insurance (PPI) through its <i>Global Card Services</i> business to credit card customers and has previously sold this insurance to consumer loan customers. PPI covers a consumer’s loan or debt repayment if certain events occur such as loss of job or illness. In response to an elevated level of customer complaints of misleading sales tactics across the industry, heightened media coverage and pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.K. Financial Services Authority (FSA) has investigated and raised concerns about the way some companies have handled complaints relating to the sale of these insurance policies. In August 2010, the FSA issued a policy statement on the assessment and remediation of PPI claims which is applicable to the Corporation’s U.K. consumer businesses and is intended to address concerns among consumers and regulators regarding the handling of PPI complaints across the industry. The policy statement sets standards for the sale of PPI that apply to current and prior sales, and in the event a company does not or did not comply with the standards, it is alleged that the insurance was incorrectly sold, giving the customer rights to remedies. The FSA gave companies until December 1, 2010 to comply with the new regulations, but the judicial review to assess compliance is still underway. Given the new regulatory guidance, as of December 31, 2010, the Corporation has a liability of $630 million based on its current claims history and an estimate of future claims that have yet to be asserted against the Corporation. The liability is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities and the related expense is included in insurance income. The policy statement also requires companies to review their sales practices and to proactively remediate non-complaining customers if evidence of a systematic breach of the newly articulated sales standards is discovered, which could include refunding premiums paid. Subject to the outcome of the Corporation’s review and the new regulatory guidance, it is possible that an additional liability may be required. Industry groups have challenged the policy statement through a judicial review process. The judicial review is not expected to be completed until the end of the first quarter of 2011. Therefore, the Corporation is unable to reasonably estimate the total amount of additional possible loss or a range of loss as of December 31, 2010. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Litigation and Regulatory Matters</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to many pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. These actions and proceedings are generally based on alleged violations of consumer protection, securities, environmental, banking, employment and other laws. In some of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Corporation and its subsidiaries. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are also subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries and investigations. Certain subsidiaries of the Corporation are registered broker/dealers or investment advisors and are subject to regulation by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the New York Stock Exchange, the FSA and other domestic, international and state securities regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by those agencies, such subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such litigation and regulatory matters, 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 Corporation generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Corporation establishes an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present 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 Corporation does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Corporation, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If, at the time of evaluation, the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is not both probable and estimable, the matter will continue to be monitored for further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and estimable. Once the loss contingency related to a litigation or regulatory matter is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Corporation will establish an accrued liability with respect to such loss contingency and record a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Corporation continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Excluding fees paid to external legal service providers, litigation-related expense of $2.6 billion was recognized in 2010 compared to $1.0 billion for 2009. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> For a limited number of the matters disclosed in this Note for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible in future periods, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Corporation is able to estimate a range of possible loss. In determining whether it is possible to provide an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, the Corporation reviews and evaluates its material litigation and regulatory matters on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. These may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on dispositive motions, settlement discussions, and other rulings by courts, arbitrators or others. In cases in which the Corporation possesses sufficient appropriate information to develop an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, that estimate is aggregated and disclosed below. There may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but such an estimate may not be possible. For those matters where an estimate is possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of possible loss is $145 million to $1.5 billion in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range. Therefore, this estimated range of possible loss represents what the Corporation believes to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Corporation’s maximum loss exposure. Information is provided below regarding the nature of all of these contingencies and, where specified, the amount of the claim associated with these loss contingencies. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Corporation. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond the Corporation’s control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Corporation’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. </div> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak Begin --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt"> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b> <font style="font-size: 8pt"> </font> </b> <font style="font-size: 7pt"> </font> </div> </div> <!-- END PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- PAGEBREAK --> <div style="margin-left: 0%"> <!-- BEGIN PAGE WIDTH --> <!-- XBRL Pagebreak End --> <div style="margin-top: 0pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-top: 12pt; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Auction Rate Securities Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Since October 2007, the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and certain affiliates have been named as defendants in a variety of lawsuits and other proceedings brought by customers and both individual and institutional investors regarding ARS. These actions generally allege that the defendants: (i) misled the plaintiffs into believing that there was a deeply liquid market for ARS, and (ii) failed to adequately disclose their or their affiliates’ practice of placing their own bids to support ARS auctions. Plaintiffs assert that ARS auctions started failing from August 2007 through February 2008 when the defendants and other broker-dealers stopped placing those “support bids.” In addition to the matters described in more detail below, numerous arbitrations and individual lawsuits have been filed against the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and certain affiliates by parties who purchased ARS and are seeking relief that includes compensatory and punitive damages totaling in excess of $1.8 billion, as well as rescission, among other relief. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Securities Actions</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation and Merrill Lynch face a number of civil actions relating to the sales of ARS and management of ARS auctions, including two putative class action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs seek to recover the alleged losses in market value of ARS securities purportedly caused by the defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages, including rescission, other compensatory and consequential damages, costs, fees and interest. The first action, <i>In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation</i>, is the result of the consolidation of two separate class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These suits were brought by two customers of Merrill Lynch, on behalf of all persons who purchased ARS in auctions managed by Merrill Lynch, against Merrill Lynch and its subsidiary Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPFS). On March 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Merrill Lynch’s motion to dismiss. On April 22, 2010, a lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is currently pending. The second action, <i>Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation</i>, was brought by a putative class of ARS purchasers against the Corporation and Banc of America Securities, LLC (BAS) and is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Corporation and BAS have filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Antitrust Actions</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, Merrill Lynch and other financial institutions were also named in two putative antitrust class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in both actions assert federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants conspired to restrain trade in ARS by placing support bids in ARS auctions, only to collectively withdraw those bids in February 2008, which allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail. The plaintiff in the first action, <i>Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.</i>, seeks to represent a class of issuers of ARS that the defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003 and February 13, 2008. This issuer action seeks to recover, among other relief, the alleged above-market interest payments that ARS issuers allegedly have had to make after the defendants allegedly stopped placing “support bids” in ARS auctions. The plaintiff in the second action, <i>Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.</i>, seeks to represent a class of investors that purchased ARS from the defendants and held those securities when ARS auctions failed on February 13, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other relief, unspecified damages for losses in the ARS’ market value, and rescission of the investors’ ARS purchases. Both actions also seek treble damages and attorneys’ fees under the Sherman Act’s private civil remedy. On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed both actions with prejudice and the plaintiffs’ respective appeals are currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Checking Account Overdraft Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) is currently a defendant in several consumer suits challenging certain deposit account-related business practices. Three of the suits are presently part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding involving approximately 65 individual cases against 30 financial institutions assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The three cases, <i>Tornes v. Bank of America, N.A., Yourke, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. </i>and <i>Knighten v. Bank of America, N.A.</i>, allege that BANA improperly and unfairly increased the number of overdraft fees it assessed on consumer deposit accounts by various means. The cases challenge the practice of reordering debit card transactions to post <font style="white-space: nowrap">high-to-low</font> and BANA’s failure to notify customers at the point of sale that the transaction may result in an overdraft charge. The cases also allege that BANA’s disclosures and advertising regarding the posting of debit card transactions are false, deceptive and misleading. These cases assert claims including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the unfair and deceptive practices statutes of various states. Plaintiffs generally seek restitution of all overdraft fees paid to BANA as a result of BANA’s allegedly wrongful business practices, as well as disgorgement, punitive damages, injunctive relief, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. Omnibus motions to dismiss many of the complaints involved in the MDL, including <i>Tornes, Yourke </i>and <i>Knighten</i>, were denied on March 12, 2010. Trial is currently scheduled for March 26, 2012. A fourth putative class action, <i>Phillips, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.</i>, which includes similar allegations, will shortly become part of the MDL proceedings. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In December 2004, BANA was also named as the defendant in <i>Closson, et al. v. Bank of America, et al.</i>, a putative class action currently pending in the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, which also challenges BANA’s practice of reordering debit card transactions to post deposits in <font style="white-space: nowrap">high-to-low</font> order. <i>Closson </i>asserts claims for violations of California state law, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, actual and punitive damages, a corrective advertising campaign and injunctive relief. BANA entered into a settlement in <i>Closson</i>, which received final approval by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on August 3, 2009. The settlement provides for a $35 million payment by BANA in exchange for a release of the claims against BANA by the members of the nationwide settlement class. Several settlement class members who objected to the final approval of the settlement have appealed. If the <i>Closson </i>settlement is affirmed, it will likely bar the claims of many of the putative class members in <i>Tornes, Yourke </i>and <i>Knighten</i>, as many of those class members are covered by the putative class in <i>Closson</i>. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On January 27, 2011, the Corporation reached a settlement in principle with the lead plaintiffs in the MDL, subject to complete final documentation and court approvals. The settlement will provide for a payment by the Corporation of $410 million (which amount was fully accrued by the Corporation as of December 31, 2010) in exchange for a complete release of claims asserted against the Corporation in the MDL. The settlement also contemplates that a stay will be requested in the <i>Closson </i>appeal and that, when this settlement becomes effective, the appeal in <i>Closson </i>will be withdrawn and the settlement in <i>Closson </i>will be effectuated according to its terms. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Countrywide Bond Insurance Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) and various other Countrywide entities are subject to claims from several monoline bond insurance companies. These claims generally relate to bond insurance policies provided by the insurers on certain securitized pools of home equity lines of credit and fixed-rate second-lien mortgage loans. Plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that they have paid claims as a result of defaults in the underlying loans and assert that these defaults are the result of improper underwriting by the defendants. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">MBIA</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, CFC and various other Countrywide entities are named as defendants in two actions filed by MBIA Insurance Corporation (MBIA). The first action, <i>MBIA Insurance Corporation, Inc. v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al.</i>, is pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County. In April 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the Countrywide defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the Corporation’s motion to dismiss. The parties have filed cross-appeals from this order. On December 22, 2010, the court issued an order on MBIA’s motion for use of sampling at trial, in which the court held that MBIA may attempt to prove its breach of contract and fraudulent inducement claims through examination of statistically significant samples of the securitizations at issue. In its order, the court did not endorse any of MBIA’s specific sampling proposals and stated that defendants have “significant valid challenges” to MBIA’s methodology that they may present at trial, together with defendants’ own views and evidence. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The second MBIA action, <i>MBIA Insurance Corporation, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corporation, et al.</i>, is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. MBIA purports to bring this action as subrogee to the note holders for certain securitized pools of home equity lines of credit and fixed-rate second-lien mortgage loans and seeks unspecified damages and declaratory relief. On May 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims against the Countrywide defendants with leave to amend, but denied the request to dismiss MBIA’s successor liability claims against the Corporation. On June 21, 2010, MBIA filed an amended complaint re-asserting its previously dismissed claims against the Countrywide defendants, re-asserting the successor liability claim against the Corporation and adding Countrywide Capital Markets, LLC as a defendant. The Countrywide defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, but the court declined to rule on the demurrer and instead entered an order which stays this case until August 1, 2011. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Syncora</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, CFC and various other Countrywide entities are named as defendants in an action filed by Syncora Guarantee Inc. (Syncora) entitled <i>Syncora Guarantee Inc. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. </i>This action, currently pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County, relates to bond insurance policies provided by Syncora on certain securitized pools of home equity lines of credit. In March 2010, the court issued an order that granted in part and denied in part the Countrywide defendants’ motion to dismiss. Syncora and the Countrywide defendants have filed cross-appeals from this order. In May 2010, Syncora amended its complaint. Defendants filed an answer to Syncora’s amended complaint on July 9, 2010, as well as a counterclaim for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The parties have agreed to stay the counterclaim until August 15, 2011. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">FGIC</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, CFC and various other Countrywide entities are named as defendants in an action filed by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC) entitled <i>Financial Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc</i>. This action, currently pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County, relates to bond insurance policies provided by FGIC on certain securitized pools of home equity lines of credit and fixed-rate second-lien mortgage loans. In June 2010, the court entered an order that granted in part and denied in part the Countrywide defendants’ motion to dismiss. FGIC and the Countrywide defendants have filed cross-appeals from this order. Defendants filed an answer to FGIC’s amended complaint on July 19, 2010. On March 24, 2010, CFC and certain other Countrywide entities filed a separate but related action against FGIC in New York Supreme Court seeking monetary damages of at least $100 million against FGIC in connection with FGIC’s failure to pay claims under certain bond insurance policies. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Ambac</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, CFC and various other Countrywide entities are named as defendants in an action filed by Ambac Assurance Corporation (Ambac) entitled <i>Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. </i>This action, currently pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County, relates to bond insurance policies provided by Ambac on certain securitized pools of home equity lines of credit and fixed-rate second-lien mortgage loans. On December 10, 2010, defendants filed answers to the complaint. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Countrywide Equity and Debt Securities Matters</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Certain New York state and municipal pension funds have commenced litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled <i>In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation</i>, against CFC, certain other Countrywide entities and several former CFC officers and directors. This action alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs claim losses in excess of $25.0 billion that plaintiffs allegedly experienced on certain CFC equity and debt securities. Plaintiffs also assert additional claims against BAS, MLPFS and other underwriter defendants under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs’ allege that CFC made false and misleading statements in certain SEC filings and elsewhere concerning the nature and quality of its loan underwriting practices and its financial results. On April 2, 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this action for $624 million in exchange for a dismissal of all claims with prejudice. On August 2, 2010, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On December 1, 2010, CFC and the plaintiffs agreed to amend the settlement to allow CFC to use up to $22.5 million of the settlement funds for a two-year period following final approval of the settlement to resolve any claims asserted by investors who chose to exclude themselves from the class. On January 7, 2011, the court preliminarily approved this amendment. The settlement remains subject to final court approval. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Interchange and Related Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> A group of merchants have filed a series of putative class actions and individual actions with regard to interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. These actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption <i>In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation </i>(<i>Interchange</i>), name Visa, MasterCard and several banks and bank holding companies, including the Corporation, as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the level of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction. Plaintiffs also challenge as unreasonable restraints of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of payment cards at the point of sale. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on their assertion that interchange would be lower or eliminated absent the alleged conduct. On January 8, 2008, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims for pre-2004 damages. Motions to dismiss the remainder of the complaint and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification are pending. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In addition, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against certain defendants, including the Corporation, relating to initial public offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa. Plaintiffs allege that the MasterCard and Visa IPOs violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs also assert that the MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs. Motions to dismiss both supplemental complaints remain pending. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation and certain of its affiliates previously entered into loss-sharing agreements with Visa and other financial institutions in connection with certain antitrust litigation against Visa, including <i>Interchange</i>. The Corporation and these same affiliates have now entered into additional loss-sharing agreements for <i>Interchange </i>that cover all defendants, including MasterCard. Collectively, the loss-sharing agreements require the Corporation <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> certain affiliates to pay 11.6 percent of the monetary portion of any comprehensive <i>Interchange</i> settlement. In the event of an adverse judgment, the agreements require the Corporation <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> certain affiliates to pay 12.8 percent of any damages associated with Visa-related claims (Visa-related damages), 9.1 percent of any damages associated with MasterCard-related claims, and 11.6 percent of any damages associated with internetwork claims (internetwork damages) or not associated specifically with Visa or MasterCard-related claims (unassigned damages). </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Pursuant to Visa’s publicly-disclosed Retrospective Responsibility Plan (the RRP), Visa placed certain proceeds from its IPO into an escrow fund (the Escrow). Under the RRP, funds in the Escrow may be accessed by Visa and its members, including Bank of America, to pay for a comprehensive settlement or damages in <i>Interchange</i>, with the Corporation’s payments from the Escrow capped at 12.81 percent of the funds that Visa places therein. Subject to that cap, the Corporation may use Escrow funds to cover: 66.7 percent of its monetary payment towards a comprehensive <i>Interchange </i>settlement, 100 percent of its payment for any Visa-related damages and 66.7 percent of its payment for any internetwork and unassigned damages. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> BAS, Merrill Lynch, MLPFS, and certain of their subsidiaries, along with other underwriters, and various issuers and others, were named as defendants in a number of putative class action lawsuits that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as <i>In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. </i>Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that defendants failed to make certain required disclosures in the registration statements and prospectuses for applicable offerings regarding alleged agreements with institutional investors that tied allocations in certain offerings to the purchase orders by those investors in the aftermarket. Plaintiffs allege that such agreements allowed defendants to manipulate the price of the securities sold in these offerings in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules promulgated thereunder. The parties agreed to settle the matter, for which the court granted final approval. Some putative class members have filed an appeal, which remains pending, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking reversal of the final approval. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Beginning in September 2008, BAS, MLPFS, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) and LaSalle Financial Services Inc., along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several putative class action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts. All of these cases have since been transferred or conditionally transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption <i>In re Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation</i>. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as various state laws, by making false or misleading disclosures about the real estate-related investments and mortgage lending practices of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) in connection with various debt and convertible stock offerings of LBHI. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. On June 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which remains pending. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Lehman Setoff Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In 2008, following the bankruptcy filing of LBHI, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF) owed money to BANA as a result of various terminated derivatives transactions entered into pursuant to one or more ISDA Master Agreements between the parties. The net termination values of these derivative transactions resulted in estimated claims by BANA against LBSF in excess of $1.0 billion. LBHI had guaranteed this exposure and, as part of an arrangement through which various LBHI subsidiaries and affiliates would retain an ability to overdraw their accounts during working hours, had $500 million in cash (plus $1.8 million in accrued interest) on deposit with BANA in a deposit account (the Deposit Account). </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On November 10, 2008, BANA exercised its right of setoff against the Deposit Account to partially satisfy claims that BANA had asserted against LBSF and LBHI pursuant to the ISDA agreements and the LBHI guarantee. At the same time, BANA exercised its right of set off against five other LBHI accounts holding an additional $7.5 million (one of which, in the amount of approximately $500,000, was later reversed). On November 26, 2008, BANA commenced an adversary proceeding against LBSF and LBHI in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. BANA sought a declaration that its setoff of LBHI’s funds was proper and not in violation of the automatic stay imposed under the Bankruptcy Code. In response, LBHI filed counterclaims against BANA alleging that BANA had no right to set off against the $502 million held in the Deposit Account, and that the entire setoff was in violation of the automatic stay. LBHI sought the return of the set-off funds plus prejudgment interest and unspecified damages for violation of the automatic stay, including attorneys’ fees and interest. LBSF and LBHI also argued in their summary judgment papers that the entire setoff was in violation of the automatic stay, although they did not plead turnover of the funds held in the other accounts. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On December 3, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered summary judgment against BANA with respect to setoff of the Deposit Account and directed BANA to pay to LBSF and LBHI $502 million, plus interest at nine percent per annum from November 10, 2008 through the date of the judgment. The court conducted a status conference on January 19, 2011 and directed the parties to discuss and present a further order regarding LBHI’s request for sanctions pertaining to BANA’s alleged violation of the automatic stay. LBSF and LBHI publicly indicated that they would request turnover of the $7 million that was set off from the other accounts plus an additional amount to account for changes in foreign exchange rates. The parties have since agreed in principle to settle both the sanctions issue and the question of turnover of the additional $7 million for an irrevocable payment of $1.5 million by BANA. The settlement, which has still to be finally documented and is subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, would express that BANA admits no liability or wrongdoing with respect to sanctions, and that LBHI and LBSF reserve no rights to seek recovery of the $7 million, on appeal or otherwise. BANA will oppose that request. BANA has preserved its appellate rights as to the December 3 order and intends to file an appeal upon entry of a final order approving the settlement. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">MBIA Insurance Corporation CDO Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On April 30, 2009, MBIA and LaCrosse Financial Products, LLC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against MLPFS and Merrill Lynch International (MLI) under the caption <i>MBIA Insurance Corporation and LaCrosse Financial Products, LLC v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith Inc.</i>, <i>and Merrill Lynch International. </i>The complaint relates to certain credit default swap and insurance agreements by which plaintiffs provided credit protection to MLPFS and MLI and other parties on CDO securities. Plaintiffs claim that MLPFS and MLI did not adequately disclose the credit quality and other risks of the CDO securities and underlying collateral. The complaint alleges claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract and seeks rescission and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, among other relief. On April 9, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and rescission claims, as well as a portion of the breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their claims and MLI has cross-appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim in its entirety. On February 1, 2011, the appellate court dismissed the case against MLI in its entirety. MBIA has filed a request to appeal the appellate court’s decision to the New York State Court of Appeals and has requested permission from the trial court to file an amended complaint. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Merrill Lynch Acquisition-related Matters</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Since January 2009, the Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among others, have been named as defendants in a variety of actions filed in state and federal courts relating to the Corporation’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch (the Acquisition). These acquisition-related cases consist of securities actions, derivative actions and actions under ERISA. The claims in these actions generally concern (i) the Acquisition; (ii) the financial condition and 2008 fourth-quarter losses experienced by the Corporation and Merrill Lynch; (iii) due diligence conducted in connection with the Acquisition; (iv) the Corporation’s agreement that Merrill Lynch could pay up to $5.8 billion in bonus payments to Merrill Lynch employees; (v) the Corporation’s discussions with government officials in December 2008 regarding the Corporation’s consideration of invoking the material adverse change clause in the Acquisition agreement and the possibility of obtaining government assistance in completing the Acquisition; <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> (vi) alleged material misrepresentations <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> material omissions in the proxy statement and related materials for the Acquisition. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Securities Actions</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Plaintiffs in the putative securities class actions in the <i>In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation </i>(Securities Plaintiffs) represent all (i) purchasers of the Corporation’s common and preferred securities between September 15, 2008 and January 21, 2009; (ii) holders of the Corporation’s common stock or Series B Preferred Stock as of October 10, 2008; and (iii) purchasers of the Corporation’s common stock issued in the offering that occurred on or about October 7, 2008. During the purported class period, the Corporation had between 4,560,112,687 and 5,017,579,321 common shares outstanding and the price of those securities declined from $33.74 on September 12, 2008 to $6.68 on January 21, 2009. Securities Plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules promulgated thereunder. Securities Plaintiffs’ amended complaint also alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to an offering of the Corporation’s common stock that occurred on or about October 7, 2008, and names BAS and MLPFS, among others, as defendants on the Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims. The Corporation and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court granted in part by dismissing certain of the Securities Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Securities Plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint which seeks to replead some of the dismissed claims as well as add claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of holders of certain debt, preferred securities and option securities. The Corporation and its co-defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint’s new and amended allegations, which remains pending. Securities Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, legal costs and attorneys’ fees. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Several individual plaintiffs have opted to pursue claims apart from the <i>In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation</i> and, accordingly, have initiated individual actions relying on substantially the same facts and claims as the Securities Plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On January 13, 2010, the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and certain of the Corporation’s current and former officers and directors were named in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled <i>Dornfest v. Bank of America Corp., et al</i>. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of investors in Corporation option contracts between September 15, 2008 and January 22, 2009 and alleges that during the class period approximately 9.5 million Corporation call option contracts and approximately eight million Corporation put option contracts were already traded on seven of the Options Clearing Corporation exchanges. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules promulgated thereunder. On April 9, 2010, the court consolidated this action with the consolidated securities action in the <i>In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation</i>, and ruled that the plaintiffs may pursue the action as an individual action. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, legal costs and attorneys’ fees. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Derivative Actions</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Several of the derivative actions related to the Acquisition that were pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery were consolidated under the caption <i>In re Bank of America Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation</i>. In addition, the MDL ordered the transfer of actions related to the Acquisition that had been pending in various federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These actions have been separately consolidated and are now pending under the caption <i>In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation.</i> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On October 9, 2009, plaintiffs in the derivative actions in the <i>In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation </i>(the Derivative Plaintiffs) filed a consolidated amended derivative and class action complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants certain of the Corporation’s current and former directors, officers and financial advisors, and certain of Merrill Lynch’s current and former directors and officers. The Corporation is named as a nominal defendant with respect to the derivative claims. The amended complaint asserts claims for, among other things: (i) violation of federal securities laws; (ii) breach of fiduciary duties; (iii) the return of incentive compensation that is alleged to be inappropriate in view of the work performed and the results achieved by certain of the defendants; and (iv) contribution in connection with the Corporation’s exposure to significant liability under state and federal law. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief. On February 8, 2010, the Derivative Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against each of the former Merrill Lynch officers and directors without prejudice. The Corporation and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were granted in part on August 27, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the Corporation and its co-defendants answered the remaining allegations asserted by the Derivative Plaintiffs. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On February 17, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Corporation filed a purported derivative action, entitled <i>Bahnmaier v. Lewis, et al.</i>, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names as defendants certain of the Corporation’s current and former directors and officers, and one of Merrill Lynch’s former officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to provide accurate and complete information to shareholders regarding: (i) certain Acquisition-related events; (ii) the potential for litigation resulting from Countrywide’s lending practices; and (iii) the risk posed to the Corporation’s capital levels as a result of Countrywide’s loan losses. The complaint also asserts claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty by failing to maintain adequate internal controls, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement in connection with the supervision and management of the operations, business and disclosure controls of the Corporation. The Corporation is named as a nominal defendant only and no monetary relief is sought against it. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief. On December 14, 2010, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation and certain of its current and former directors are also named as defendants in several putative class and derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery, including <i>Rothbaum v. Lewis</i>; <i>Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Lewis; Tremont Partners LLC v. Lewis; Kovacs v. Lewis; Stern v. Lewis</i>; and <i>Houx v. Lewis</i>, brought by shareholders alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Acquisition. On April 27, 2009, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the derivative actions under the caption <i>In re Bank of America Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation</i>. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief. On April 30, 2009, the putative class claims in the <i>Stern v. Lewis </i>and <i>Houx v. Lewis </i>actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Trial is scheduled for October 2012. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">ERISA Actions</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On October 9, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA actions in the <i>In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation </i>(the ERISA Plaintiffs) filed a consolidated amended complaint for breaches of duty under ERISA. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class that consists of participants in the Corporation’s 401(k) Plan, the Corporation’s 401(k) Plan for Legacy Companies, the CFC 401(k) Plan (collectively, the 401(k) Plans) and the Corporation’s Pension Plan. The amended complaint alleges violations of ERISA, based on, among other things: (i) an alleged failure to prudently and loyally manage the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan by continuing to offer the Corporation’s common stock as an investment option or measure for participant contributions; (ii) an alleged failure to monitor the fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan; (iii) an alleged failure to provide complete and accurate information to the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan participants with respect to the Merrill Lynch and Countrywide acquisitions and related matters; and (iv) alleged co-fiduciary liability for these purported fiduciary breaches. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief. On August 27, 2010, the court dismissed the complaint brought by plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA action in its entirety. The ERISA Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s dismissal of their actions. The parties then stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal with the agreement that the ERISA Plaintiffs can reinstate their appeal at any time up until July 27, 2011. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">NYAG Action</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On February 4, 2010, the New York Attorney General (NYAG) filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of New York State, entitled <i>People of the State of New York v. Bank of America, et al</i>. The complaint names as defendants the Corporation and the Corporation’s former CEO and CFO, and alleges violations of Sections 352, 352-c(1)(a), 352-c(1)(c), and 353 of the New York General Business Law, commonly known as the Martin Act, and Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount in disgorgement, penalties, restitution, and damages and other equitable relief. The court has ordered fact discovery to be complete by September 30, 2011. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Montgomery</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation, several of its current and former officers and directors, BAS, MLPFS and other unaffiliated underwriters have been named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled <i>Montgomery v. Bank of America, et al</i>. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 14, 2011. Plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf of all persons who acquired certain series of preferred stock offered by the Corporation pursuant to a shelf registration statement dated May 5, 2006. Plaintiff’s claims arise from three offerings dated January 24, 2008, January 28, 2008 and May 20, 2008, from which the Corporation allegedly received proceeds of $15.8 billion. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and alleges that the prospectus supplements associated with the offerings: (i) failed to disclose that the Corporation’s loans, leases, CDOs and commercial MBS were impaired to a greater extent than disclosed; (ii) misrepresented the extent of the impaired assets by failing to establish adequate reserves or properly record losses for its impaired assets; (iii) misrepresented the adequacy of the Corporation’s internal controls in light of the alleged impairment of its assets; (iv) misrepresented the Corporation’s capital base and Tier 1 leverage ratio for risk-based capital in light of the allegedly impaired assets; and (v) misrepresented the thoroughness and adequacy of the Corporation’s due diligence in connection with its acquisition of Countrywide. The amended complaint seeks rescission, compensatory and other damages. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Mortgage-backed Securities Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Corporation and its affiliates, Countrywide entities and their affiliates, and Merrill Lynch entities and their affiliates have been named as defendants in several cases relating to their various roles as issuer, originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, underwriter <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> controlling entity in MBS offerings, pursuant to which the MBS investors were entitled to a portion of the cash flow from the underlying pools of mortgages. These cases generally include purported class action suits and actions by individual MBS purchasers. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the registration statements, prospectuses and prospectus supplements for securities issued by securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 <font style="white-space: nowrap">and/or</font> state securities laws and other state statutory and common laws. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> These cases generally involve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the process by which the properties that served as collateral for the mortgage loans underlying the MBS were appraised; (ii) the percentage of equity that mortgage borrowers had in their homes; (iii) the borrowers’ ability to repay their mortgage loans; and (iv) the underwriting practices by which those mortgage loans were originated (collectively, the MBS Claims). In addition, several of the cases discussed below assert claims related to the ratings given to the different tranches of MBS by rating agencies. Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified costs and legal fees and, in some instances, seek rescission. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Luther Litigation and Related Actions</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> David H. Luther and various pension funds (collectively, Luther Plaintiffs) commenced a putative class action against CFC, several of its affiliates, BAS, MLPFS and other entities and individuals in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County entitled <i>Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al </i>(the Luther Action). The Luther Plaintiffs claim that they and other unspecified investors purchased MBS issued by subsidiaries of CFC in 429 offerings between January 2005 and December 2007. The Luther Plaintiffs certified that they collectively purchased securities in 61 of the 429 offerings for approximately $216 million. On January 6, 2010, the court granted CFC’s motion to dismiss, with prejudice, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Luther Plaintiffs’ appeal to the California Court of Appeal is currently pending. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Following the dismissal of the Luther Action, the Maine State Retirement System filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled <i>Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. </i>(the Maine Action). The Maine Action names the same defendants as the Luther Action, as well as the Corporation and NB Holdings Corporation, and asserts substantially the same allegations regarding 427 of the MBS offerings that were at issue in the Luther Action. On May 14, 2010, the court appointed the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) as Lead Plaintiff. On July 13, 2010, IPERS filed an amended complaint, which added additional pension fund plaintiffs (collectively, the Maine Plaintiffs). The Maine Plaintiffs certified that they purchased securities in 81 of those 427 offerings, for approximately $538 million. On November 4, 2010, the court granted CFC’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and ordered the Maine Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. In so doing, the court held that the Maine Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the 81 offerings in which they actually purchased MBS. The court also held that the applicable statute of limitations could be tolled by the filing of the Luther Action only with respect to the offerings in which the Luther Plaintiffs actually purchased MBS. On December 6, 2010, the Maine Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that relates to 14 MBS offerings. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund (Western Teamsters) filed suit against the same defendants named in the Maine Action on November 17, 2010 in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, entitled <i>Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al</i>. Western Teamsters claims that it and other unspecified investors purchased MBS issued in the 428 offerings that were also at issue in the Luther Action. The Western Teamsters action has been stayed by the Superior Court pending resolution of the appeal of the Luther Action. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The New Mexico State Investment Council, New Mexico Educational Retirement Board and New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association (the New Mexico Plaintiffs) have also brought an action against CFC and several of its affiliates, current and former officers, as well as third-party underwriters in New Mexico District Court for the County of Santa Fe, entitled <i>New Mexico State Investment Council, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al</i>. A related action was later filed against the individual defendants in California Superior Court, entitled <i>New Mexico State Investment Council, et al. v. Stanford L. Kurland, et al. </i>On November 15, 2010, the parties agreed to resolve and dismiss these two cases in their entirety with prejudice for an amount that is not material to the Corporation’s results of operations. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Putnam Bank filed a putative class action lawsuit on January 27, 2011 against CFC, the Corporation, certain of their subsidiaries, and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled <i>Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al</i>. Putnam Bank alleges that it purchased approximately $33 million in eight MBS offerings issued by subsidiaries of CFC between August 2005 and September 2007. All eight offerings were also included in the Luther Action and the Maine Action. In addition to certain MBS Claims, Putnam Bank contends among other things that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the number of mortgage loans in each offering that were originated under reduced documentation programs; (ii) the method by which mortgages were selected for inclusion in the collateral pools underlying the offerings; and (iii) the analysis conducted by ratings agencies prior to assigning ratings to the MBS. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Countrywide may also be subject to contractual indemnification obligations for the benefit of certain defendants involved in the MBS matters discussed above. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">IndyMac Litigation</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In 2006 and 2007, MLPFS, CSC and other financial institutions participated as underwriters in MBS offerings in which IndyMac MBS, Inc. securitized residential mortgage loans originated or acquired by IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Bank) and created trusts that issued MBS. In 2009, the Corporation was named as an underwriter defendant, along with several other financial institutions, in its alleged capacity as <font style="white-space: nowrap">“successor-in-interest”</font> to MLPFS and CSC in a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled <i>In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation</i>. In their complaint, plaintiffs assert MBS Claims relating to 106 offerings of IndyMac-related MBS. On June 21, 2010, the court dismissed the Corporation from the action because the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to support their allegation that the Corporation is the <font style="white-space: nowrap">“successor-in-interest”</font> to MLPFS and CSC. On August 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to add MLPFS and CSC as defendants, which MLPFS and CSC have opposed. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Merrill Lynch MBS Litigation</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Merrill Lynch, MLPFS, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. (MLMI) and certain current and former directors of MLMI are named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, entitled <i>Public Employees’ Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc</i>. In addition to MBS Claims, plaintiffs also allege that the offering documents for the MBS misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the credit ratings assigned to the securities. In March 2010, the court dismissed claims related to 65 of 84 offerings with prejudice due to lack of standing as no named plaintiff purchased securities in those offerings. On November 8, 2010, the court dismissed claims related to 1 of 19 remaining offerings on separate grounds. MLPFS was the sole underwriter of these 18 offerings. On December 1, 2010, the defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Cambridge Place Investment Management Litigation</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. (CPIM), as the alleged exclusive assignee of certain entities that allegedly purchased MBS offered or sold by BAS, MLPFS and CSC, brought an action against BAS, MLPFS, CSC and several of their affiliates in Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, entitled <i>Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al</i>. CPIM also brought claims against more than 50 other defendants in this action. In addition to MBS Claims, CPIM contends that BAS, MLPFS, CSC and their affiliates made false and misleading statements in violation of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act regarding: (i) due diligence performed by the underwriters on the mortgage loans and the mortgage originators’ underwriting practices; and (ii) the credit enhancements applicable to certain tranches of the MBS. On August 13, 2010, certain defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 13, 2010, CPIM filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On October 12, 2010, the court referred the motion to remand to a Magistrate Judge for consideration. On December 28, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the action be remanded to state court. On January 18, 2011, the defendants filed an objection to that recommendation, which CPIM opposed on February 1, 2011. The objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation remains pending. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On February 11, 2011, CPIM commenced a separate civil action in Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, captioned <i>Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et al.</i>, in connection with the offering or sale of certain additional mortgage-backed securities by BAS, MLPFS, CSC, several of their affiliates and more than 40 other defendants. CPIM alleges that it is the assignee of the claims of certain entities that allegedly purchased mortgage-backed securities issued or sold by BAS, MLPFS and CSC in various offerings. In addition to MBS Claims, CPIM contends that BAS, MLPFS, CSC and their affiliates made false and misleading statements in violation of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act in connection with these offerings regarding: (i) due diligence performed by the underwriters on the mortgage loans and the mortgage originators’ underwriting practices; (ii) the credit enhancements applicable to certain tranches of the MBS; and (iii) the validity of each issuing trust’s title to the mortgage loans comprising the pool for that securitization. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Federal Home Loan Bank Litigation</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (FHLB Atlanta) filed a complaint on January 18, 2011 against the Corporation, CFC, CSC and Countrywide Home Loans (CHL) in the State Court of Georgia, Fulton County, entitled <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al</i>. In addition to certain MBS Claims, FHLB Atlanta contends that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the credit ratings of the securities; and (ii) the transfer and assignment of the loans to the trusts. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (FHLB Chicago) filed a complaint against the Corporation, BAS, MLPFS and CSC in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, entitled <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Funding Corp., et al. </i>(the Illinois Action). FHLB Chicago also filed a complaint against BAS, CFC and subsidiaries of CFC in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, entitled <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al</i>. (the California Action). In addition to certain MBS Claims, FHLB Chicago contends that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding among other things, the guidelines for extending mortgages to borrowers and the due diligence performed on repurchased and pooled loans. Both actions have been removed to federal court. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh (FHLB Pittsburgh) commenced an action against CFC, CSC and certain other Countrywide affiliates, as well as several ratings agencies, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Pennsylvania, entitled <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh v. Countrywide Securities Corporation et al</i>. FHLB Pittsburgh claims to have purchased MBS issued by subsidiaries of CFC in five offerings for approximately $366 million. In addition to certain MBS Claims, FHLB Pittsburgh contends that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the risk associated with the MBS based on their credit ratings. Countrywide’s motion to dismiss was denied on November 29, 2010. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (FHLB Seattle) filed four separate complaints, each against different defendants, including the Corporation and several of its subsidiaries, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, as well as certain other defendants, in the Superior Court of Washington for King County concerning four separate issuances entitled <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. UBS Securities LLC, et al.</i>; <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Countrywide Securities Corp., et al.</i>; <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al. </i>and <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al</i>. In addition to certain MBS Claims, FHLB Seattle contends that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the number of borrowers who actually lived in the houses that secured the mortgage loans and the business practices of the lending institutions that made the mortgage loans. FHLB Seattle claims that the sales violated the Securities Act of Washington. On October 18, 2010, the Corporation entities and Countrywide entities named as defendants in three of the cases filed a consolidated motion to dismiss the amended complaints, which is currently pending. On the same date, the Merrill Lynch entities named as defendants in the fourth case filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is currently pending. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (FHLB San Francisco) filed two actions against various affiliates of the Corporation, as well as various Countrywide and Merrill Lynch entities in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entitled: (i) <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.</i>, which asserts claims against CFC, CSC, BAS and several of their affiliates; and (ii) <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., et al.</i>, which asserts claims against CSC and MLPFS. In addition to certain MBS Claims, FHLB San Francisco contends that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the original mortgage lenders’ guidelines for extending the loans to borrowers. FHLB San Francisco also claims that defendants failed to disclose that third-party ratings services’ credit ratings of the MBS did not take into account defendants’ false and misleading statements about the mortgage loans underlying the MBS. On November 5, 2010, FHLB San Francisco sought permission from the court to amend its complaint in the first action to include the Corporation as a defendant and, among other things, to assert control person liability claims against the Corporation under state and federal securities laws and to assert that the Corporation succeeded to CFC’s interests. Defendants had removed the state court actions to federal court, but on December 20, 2010, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California remanded the cases to state court and denied a motion to amend the complaint as moot when it granted remand. On November 5, 2010, FHLB San Francisco also filed a declaratory action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entitled <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Bank of America Corporation and Does 1-10</i>, seeking a determination that the Corporation is a successor to the liabilities of CFC including the liabilities at issue in <i>Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.</i> </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Charles Schwab Litigation</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The Charles Schwab Corporation (Schwab) has filed an action against the Corporation, BAS, Countrywide, and several of their affiliates, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on July 15, 2010 entitled <i>The Charles Schwab Corp. v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp., et al</i>. This action is in connection with the purchase by Schwab of approximately $577 million of MBS, $166 million of which relates to claims with respect to the Corporation and BAS and $411 million of which relates to claims with respect to Countrywide. In addition to MBS Claims, Schwab contends that the Corporation, BAS and Countrywide are liable for false and misleading statements regarding among other things, the business practices of the lending institution that made the original loan and MBS credit ratings. In September 2010, the Corporation, BAS and Countrywide joined in or consented to the removal of this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Schwab has filed a motion to remand the action to California state court, which remains pending. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Allstate Litigation</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York and American Heritage Life Insurance Company (collectively, the Allstate Plaintiffs) filed an action on December 27, 2010 against CFC, the Corporation, several of their affiliates and several individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled <i>Allstate Insurance Company, et al., v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al</i>. (the Allstate Action). The Allstate Plaintiffs allege that they purchased MBS issued by CFC related entities in 25 offerings between March 2005 and June 2007. All but three of the 25 offerings in the Allstate Action are also at issue in the Luther and Western Teamsters Actions. Two of the 25 offerings in the Allstate Action are also at issue in the second amended complaint filed by plaintiffs in the Maine Action on December 6, 2010. In addition to certain MBS Claims, the Allstate Plaintiffs contend that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding: (i) the number of borrowers who used the properties securing the mortgage loans as their primary residence; (ii) the number of mortgage loans in each offering that were originated under reduced documentation programs; and (iii) the standards by which the mortgage loans were serviced after origination. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><i><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Regulatory Investigations</font></i></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> In addition to the MBS litigation discussed beginning on page 201, the Corporation has also received a number of subpoenas and other informal requests for information from federal regulators regarding MBS matters, including inquiries related to the Corporation’s underwriting and issuance of MBS and its participation in certain CDO offerings. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Municipal Derivatives Matters</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> The SEC, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve and a Working Group of State Attorneys General (the Working Group) have investigated the Corporation, BANA and BAS concerning possible anticompetitive practices in the municipal derivatives industry dating back to the early 1990s. These investigations have focused on the bidding practices for guaranteed investment contracts, the investment vehicles in which the proceeds of municipal bond offerings are deposited, as well as other types of derivative transactions related to municipal bonds. On January 11, 2007, the Corporation entered a Corporate Conditional Leniency Letter with the DOJ, under which the DOJ agreed not to prosecute the Corporation for criminal antitrust violations in connection with matters the Corporation has reported to the DOJ, subject to the Corporation’s continued cooperation. On December 7, 2010, the Corporation and its affiliates settled inquiries with the SEC, OCC, IRS and the Working Group for an aggregate amount that is not material to the Corporation’s results of operations. In addition, the Corporation entered into an agreement with the Federal Reserve providing for additional oversight and compliance risk management. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> BANA and Merrill Lynch, along with other financial institutions, are named as defendants in several substantially similar class actions and individual actions, filed in various state and federal courts by several municipalities that issued municipal bonds, as well as purchasers of municipal derivatives. These actions generally allege that defendants conspired to violate federal and state antitrust laws by allocating customers, and fixing or stabilizing rates of return on certain municipal derivatives from 1992 to the present. These actions seek unspecified damages, including treble damages. However, as a result of the Corporation’s receipt of the Corporate Leniency Letter from the DOJ referenced above, the Corporation is eligible to seek a ruling that certain civil plaintiffs are limited to single, rather than treble, damages and relief from joint and several liability with co-defendants in the civil suits discussed below. All of the actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and consolidated in a single proceeding, entitled <i>In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation</i>. Defendants other than BANA and Merrill Lynch filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaints, which the court denied in large part in April 2010. The action has otherwise been largely stayed while the DOJ completes its criminal trials concerning other parties. </div> <div style="margin-top: 12pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Ocala Litigation</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche Bank AG each filed claims (the 2009 Actions) against BANA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled <i>BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A. </i>and <i>Deutsche Bank AG v. Bank of America, N.A</i>. Plaintiffs allege that BANA failed to properly perform its duties as indenture trustee, collateral agent, custodian and depositary for Ocala Funding, LLC (Ocala), a home mortgage warehousing facility, resulting in the loss of plaintiffs’ investment in Ocala. Ocala was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (TBW), a home mortgage originator and servicer which is alleged to have committed fraud that led to its eventual bankruptcy. Ocala provided funding for TBW’s mortgage origination activities by issuing notes, the proceeds of which were to be used by TBW to originate home mortgages. Such mortgages and other Ocala assets in turn were pledged to BANA, as collateral agent, to secure the notes. Plaintiffs lost most or all of their investment in Ocala when, as the result of the alleged fraud committed by TBW, Ocala was unable to repay the notes purchased by plaintiffs and there was insufficient collateral to satisfy Ocala’s debt obligations. Plaintiffs allege that BANA breached its contractual, fiduciary and other duties to Ocala, thereby permitting TBW’s alleged fraud to go undetected. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief from BANA, including interest and attorneys’ fees, in an unspecified amount, but which plaintiffs allege exceeds $1.6 billion. BANA’s motions to dismiss these actions are currently pending. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On August 30, 2010, plaintiffs each filed a new lawsuit (the 2010 Actions) against BANA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled <i>BNP Paribas Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A. </i>and <i>Deutsche Bank AG v. Bank of America, N.A.</i>, which the parties agreed to transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as related to the 2009 Actions. The 2010 Actions assert an alternative theory for plaintiffs to recover a portion of their Ocala losses from BANA. Plaintiffs allege that BANA’s commercial division purchased from TBW participation interests in pools of mortgage loans that allegedly included loans that were already pledged as collateral for plaintiffs’ Ocala notes. Plaintiffs allege that the purchase of these participation interests constituted conversion of the underlying mortgage loans and that BANA is thus required to reimburse plaintiffs for the value of these loans. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and other damages, interest and attorneys’ fees in amounts that are unspecified but which plaintiffs allege exceed approximately $665 million, representing a portion of the same losses alleged in the 2009 Actions. BANA’s motion to dismiss the 2010 Actions was argued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 26, 2011. </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 2%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On October 1, 2010, BANA, on behalf of Ocala’s investors, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver of Colonial Bank (TBW’s primary bank) and Platinum Community Bank (a wholly-owned subsidiary of TBW) entitled <i>Bank of America, National Association as indenture trustee, custodian and collateral agent for Ocala Funding, LLC v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation</i>. The suit seeks judicial review of the FDIC’s denial of the administrative claims brought by BANA, on behalf of Ocala, in the FDIC’s Colonial and Platinum receivership proceedings. BANA’s claims allege that Ocala’s losses were in whole or in part the result of Colonial’s and Platinum’s participation in TBW’s alleged fraud. BANA seeks a court order requiring the FDIC to allow BANA’s claims in an amount equal to Ocala’s losses and, accordingly, to permit BANA, as trustee, collateral agent, custodian and depositary for Ocala, to share appropriately in distributions of any receivership assets that the FDIC makes to creditors of the two failed banks. </div> <div style="margin-top: 9pt; font-size: 1pt">  </div> <div align="left" style="margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> <b><font style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica">Parmalat</font></b> </div> <div align="left" style="text-align:justify; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; text-indent: 0%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; color: #000000; background: transparent"> On November 23, 2005, the Official Liquidators of Food Holdings Limited and Dairy Holdings Limited, two entities in liquidation proceedings in the Cayman Islands, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled <i>Food Holdings Ltd, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al.</i>, against the Corporation and several related entities. Plaintiffs allege that the Corporation and other defendants conspired with Parmalat, which was admitted to insolvency proceedings in Italy in December 2003, in carrying out transactions involving the plaintiffs in connection with the funding of Parmalat’s Brazilian entities. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims. The complaint seeks in excess of $400 million in compensatory damages and interest, among other relief. On February 17, 2010, the court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. On March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on April 1, 2010, the Corporation filed a cross-appeal. Briefing was completed in December 2010. </div> </div>
</NonNumbericText>
<NonNumericTextHeader> <!--DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" --> <!-- Begin Block Tagged Note </NonNumericTextHeader>
<FootnoteIndexer/>
<CurrencyCode/>
<CurrencySymbol/>
<IsIndependantCurrency> false </IsIndependantCurrency>
<ShowCurrencySymbol> false </ShowCurrencySymbol>
<DisplayDateInUSFormat> false </DisplayDateInUSFormat>
<hasSegments> false </hasSegments>
<hasScenarios> false </hasScenarios>
</Cell>
</Cells>
<OriginalInstanceReportColumns/>
<Unit> Other </Unit>
<ElementDataType> us-types:textBlockItemType </ElementDataType>
<SimpleDataType> string </SimpleDataType>
<ElementDefenition> Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. </ElementDefenition>
<ElementReferences> Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 </ElementReferences>
<IsTotalLabel> false </IsTotalLabel>
<IsEPS> false </IsEPS>
<Label> Commitments and Contingencies </Label>
</Row>
</Rows>
<Footnotes/>
<NumberOfCols> 1 </NumberOfCols>
<NumberOfRows> 2 </NumberOfRows>
<ReportName> Commitments and Contingencies </ReportName>
<MonetaryRoundingLevel> UnKnown </MonetaryRoundingLevel>
<SharesRoundingLevel> UnKnown </SharesRoundingLevel>
<PerShareRoundingLevel> UnKnown </PerShareRoundingLevel>
<ExchangeRateRoundingLevel> UnKnown </ExchangeRateRoundingLevel>
<HasCustomUnits> false </HasCustomUnits>
<SharesShouldBeRounded> true </SharesShouldBeRounded>
</InstanceReport>

11 Subsequent Filings that Reference this Filing

  As Of               Filer                 Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size             Issuer                      Filing Agent

 2/20/24  Bank of America Corp./DE          10-K       12/31/23  200:61M
 2/22/23  Bank of America Corp./DE          10-K       12/31/22  200:66M
11/10/22  Bank of America Corp./DE          SC TO-I                7:1.3M Bank of America Corp./DE          Donnelley … Solutions/FA
 2/22/22  Bank of America Corp./DE          10-K       12/31/21  201:72M
 8/02/21  Bank of America Corp./DE          S-3/A                 12:4.2M                                   Donnelley … Solutions/FA
 6/25/21  Bank of America Corp./DE          S-3                   10:2.9M                                   Donnelley … Solutions/FA
 2/24/21  Bank of America Corp./DE          10-K       12/31/20  199:66M
 1/30/12  SEC                               UPLOAD10/03/17    1:45K  Bank of America Corp./DE
12/02/11  SEC                               UPLOAD10/03/17    1:52K  Bank of America Corp./DE
 8/03/11  SEC                               UPLOAD10/03/17    1:69K  Bank of America Corp./DE
 6/06/11  SEC                               UPLOAD10/03/17    1:189K Bank of America Corp./DE
↑Top
Filing Submission 0000950123-11-018743   –   Alternative Formats (Word / Rich Text, HTML, Plain Text, et al.)
Copyright © 2024 Fran Finnegan & Company LLC – All Rights Reserved.
About — Privacy — Redactions — Help — Sat., Apr. 27, 5:24:20.2am ET