KeyBank 2014 Annual Report Download - page 219

class of all participants in the KeyCorp 401(k) Savings Plan and alleged that the defendants in the lawsuit
breached fiduciary duties owed to them under ERISA. These two putative class action lawsuits were
substantively consolidated with each other in a proceeding styled Thomas Metyk, et al. v. KeyCorp, et al.
(“Metyk”). In January 2013, the Northern District of Ohio entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim and entered its final judgment
terminating the Metyk proceeding. Plaintiffs appealed both the Northern District’s dismissal and its denial of
plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“Sixth
Circuit”). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Northern District’s decision on both issues, and denied plaintiffs’
petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the
Supreme Court of the United States, which the Supreme Court denied on November 17, 2014.
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. KeyBank was named a defendant in a putative class action seeking to
represent a national class of KeyBank customers allegedly harmed by KeyBank’s overdraft practices. The case
was transferred and consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion proceedings to a multidistrict
proceeding styled In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”). KeyBank filed a notice of appeal in regard to the denial by
the District Court of a motion to compel arbitration. In August 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) vacated the District Court’s order denying KeyBank’s motion to
compel arbitration and remanded the case for further consideration. In June 2013, KeyBank filed with the District
Court its renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss litigation. The District Court granted
KeyBank’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed. On June 18,
2014, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s order granting KeyBank’s renewed motion to compel
arbitration and remanded the case to the District Court to address the issue of the enforceability of KeyBank’s
arbitration provision. On February 3, 2015, the District Court denied KeyBank’s Second Renewed Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint. KeyBank expects to file an appeal.
Other litigation. From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are subject to
various other litigation, investigations, and administrative proceedings. Private, civil litigations may range from
individual actions involving a single plaintiff to putative class action lawsuits with potentially thousands of class
members. Investigations may involve both formal and informal proceedings, by both government agencies and
self-regulatory bodies. These other matters may involve claims for substantial monetary relief. At times, these
matters may present novel claims or legal theories. Due to the complex nature of these various other matters, it
may be years before some matters are resolved. While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate resolution or
range of financial liability, based on information presently known to us, we do not believe there is any other
matter to which we are a party, or involving any of our properties that, individually or in the aggregate, would
reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. We continually monitor and
reassess the potential materiality of these other litigation matters. We note, however, that in light of the inherent
uncertainty in legal proceedings there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution will not exceed established
reserves. As a result, the outcome of a particular matter, or a combination of matters, may be material to our
results of operations for a particular period, depending upon the size of the loss or our income for that particular
period.
206