SunTrust 2013 Annual Report Download - page 210

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, continued
194
For a limited number of legal matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses. For other matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, such an estimate is not possible. For
those matters where a loss is both estimable and reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of
reasonably possible losses as $0 to approximately $300 million in excess of the reserves, if any, related to those matters. This
estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which
may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available at December 31, 2013.
The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this
estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range; therefore, this
estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Based on current knowledge, it is the opinion of
management that liabilities arising from legal claims in excess of the amounts currently reserved, if any, will not have a material
impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. However, in light of the significant
uncertainties involved in these matters and the 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 Company’s financial condition, results, or cash flows for
any given reporting period.
The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters:
Card Association Antitrust Litigation
The Company is a defendant, along with Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard International, as well as several other banks, in
several antitrust lawsuits challenging their practices. For a discussion regarding the Company’s involvement in this
litigation matter, see Note 17, “Guarantees.”
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation
Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants in several
individual and putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and state
and federal courts in Arkansas, California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and/or state law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and
preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages. All cases
were transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the class action. On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
the claims against STRH and the other underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the class plaintiffs was
approved by the Court and the class settlement approval process was completed. A number of individual lawsuits and smaller
putative class actions remained following the class settlement. STRH settled two such individual actions. The other individual
lawsuits were dismissed. The appeal period in one such case expired in January 2014 and in the other two will expire once
the plaintiffs' claims against a third party have been resolved.
Colonial BancGroup Securities Litigation
Beginning in July 2009, STRH, certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (“Colonial BancGroup”) and certain
officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was
brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs
allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the
relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup’s goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting
standards, and credit quality. On August 28, 2009, the Colonial BancGroup filed for bankruptcy. The defendants’ motion to
dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. This amended
complaint was filed and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In October 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in
part this motion.
Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank
This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9,
2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are
actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil
and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia
citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate
being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court
entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted
out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of