Capital One 2011 Annual Report Download - page 268

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS—(Continued)
En Banc. In January 2011, COBNA filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking leave
to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. On April 4, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied Capital One’s
writ of certiorari, and as a result, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court to begin
discovery.
The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district Litigation matter involves similar issues as Rubio.
This multi-district litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer order issued by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation (“MDL”), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two pending putative class actions against COBNA—
Nancy Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D. Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in
the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a putative
class action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations, and violated the TILA, the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The MDL
plaintiffs seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney’s fees and an injunction against future rate increases. Fact
discovery is now closed. On August 8, 2011, Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment, which remains
pending with the court.
West Virginia Attorney General Litigation
In January 2010, the West Virginia Attorney General filed suit against COBNA and various affiliates in Mason
County, West Virginia, challenging numerous credit card practices under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act. The West Virginia Attorney General seeks injunctive relief, consumer refunds, statutory
damages, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees. COBNA removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In July 2010, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia remanded the case back to Mason County Circuit Court and
denied the motion to dismiss as moot. In August 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. In April 2011, the Court denied our motion to dismiss and
scheduled a bench trial to begin on December 6, 2011. On July 20, 2011, COBNA removed the case again to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the matter to
state court. On August 12, 2011, the district court issued an order remanding the matter back to Mason County
Circuit Court. In January, 2012, the West Virginia Attorney General dismissed all claims with prejudice for post-
2005 conduct as part of a settlement agreement in which COBNA agreed to pay a non-material amount of money
related to certain pre-2006 conduct.
Mortgage Repurchase Litigation
On February 5, 2009, GreenPoint was named as a defendant in a lawsuit commenced in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, New York County, by U.S. Bank National Association, Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly
known as XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc. (the “U.S. Bank Litigation”).
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that GreenPoint breached certain representations and warranties in two
contracts pursuant to which GreenPoint sold approximately 30,000 mortgage loans having an aggregate original
principal balance of approximately $1.8 billion to a purchaser that ultimately transferred most of these mortgage
loans to a securitization trust. Some of the securities issued by the trust were insured by two of the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have alleged breaches of representations and warranties with respect to certain specific mortgage loans.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order compelling GreenPoint to repurchase the entire portfolio of
30,000 mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations and warranties relating to a limited sampling
248