Capital One 2014 Annual Report Download - page 281

the repurchase of all loans in the trust, the award of rescissory damages, costs, fees and interest. In January 2014,
the court granted GreenPoint’s motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, ruling that New York’s six-year
statute of limitations began running no later than the time of the mortgage securitization. The plaintiff has appealed
the dismissal of the complaint.
As noted above in the section entitled Mortgage Representation and Warranty Liabilities, the Company’s subsidiaries
establish reserves with respect to representation and warranty litigation matters, where appropriate, within the
Company’s overall representation and warranty reserves. Please see above for more details.
Anti-Money Laundering Investigation
Capital One has received subpoenas and testimony requests from the New York District Attorney’s Office (“NYDA”)
with respect to certain check casher clients of the Commercial Banking business and Capital One’s anti-money
laundering program. In early 2015, we received similar requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice
(“DOJ”) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of Treasury. Capital One is
cooperating with all agencies involved in the investigation.
Subprime Auto Loan Investigations
Capital One has received a subpoena from the NYDA seeking information regarding the Company’s subprime
auto finance business. Capital One has also received a subpoena from the DOJ’s New Jersey office requesting
information related to subprime auto origination and securitization activities. Capital One is cooperating with both
investigations.
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation
In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and COBNA were named as defendants in a putative class action
named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer
checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that our methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts was
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state
unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of
Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) involving numerous
defendant banks, captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint against CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In March 2011, the MDL court granted CONA’s motion to dismiss claims of breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other
respects. In June 2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The parties reached an
agreement to resolve the class claims in October 2014, and the court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement in January 2015.
Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri and New Mexico State Attorney General Payment Protection Matters
In April 2012, the Attorney General of Hawaii filed a lawsuit in First Circuit Court in Hawaii against Capital One
Bank (USA) N.A., and Capital One Services, LLC. The case is one of several similar lawsuits filed by the Attorney
General of Hawaii against various banks challenging the marketing and sale of payment protection and credit
259
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)