|
|||||
2003 Annual Report: Financial Review: Statements and Notes: Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies |
Note 13Commitments and Contingencies |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 recorded on the Corporation's balance sheet. Credit Extension CommitmentsThe Corporation enters into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, standby letters of credit (SBLCs) and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The unfunded lending commitments shown in the following table have been reduced by amounts participated to other financial institutions of $10.4 billion and $10.2 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The following table summarizes outstanding unfunded lending commitments at December 31, 2003 and 2002.
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 borrowers' ability to pay. Loan commitments include equity commitments of approximately $1.7 billion and $2.2 billion at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which primarily relate to obligations to fund existing equity investments. The Corporation issues SBLCs and financial guarantees to support the obligations of its customers to beneficiaries. Additionally, in many cases, the Corporation holds collateral in various forms against these SBLCs. As part of its risk management activities, the Corporation continuously monitors the credit-worthiness of the customer as well as SBLC exposure; however, if the customer fails to perform the specified obligation to the beneficiary, the beneficiary may draw upon the SBLC by presenting documents that are in compliance with the letter of credit terms. In that event, the Corporation either repays the money borrowed or advanced, makes payment on account of the indebtedness of the customer or makes payment on account of the default by the customer in the performance of an obligation, to the beneficiary up to the full notional amount of the SBLC. The customer is obligated to reimburse the Corporation for any such payment. If the customer fails to pay, the Corporation would, as contractually permitted, liquidate collateral and/or set off accounts. Commercial letters of credit, issued primarily to facilitate customer trade finance activities, are usually collateralized by the underlying goods being shipped to the customer and are generally short-term. Credit card lines are unsecured commitments that are not legally binding. Management reviews credit card lines at least annually, and upon evaluation of the customers' creditworthiness, the Corporation has the right to terminate or change certain terms of the credit card lines. The Corporation uses various techniques to manage risk associated with these types of instruments that include collateral and/or adjusting commitment amounts based on the borrower's financial condition; therefore, the total commitment amount does not necessarily represent the actual risk of loss or future cash requirements. For each of these types of instruments, the Corporation's exposure to credit loss is represented by the contractual amount of these instruments. Other CommitmentsWhen-issued securities are commitments to purchase or sell securities during the time period between the announcement of a securities offering and the issuance of those securities. Changes in market price between commitment date and issuance are reflected in trading account profits. At December 31, 2003, the Corporation had commitments to purchase and sell when-issued securities of $155.5 billion and $145.8 billion, respectively. At December 31, 2002, the Corporation had commitments to purchase and sell when-issued securities of $166.1 billion and $164.5 billion, respectively.At December 31, 2003 and 2002, charge cards (nonrevolving card lines) to individuals and government entities guaranteed by the U.S. government in the amount of $13.7 billion and $52.4 billion, respectively, were not included in credit card line commitments in the previous table. The outstandings related to these charge cards were $233 million and $208 million, respectively. At December 31, 2003, the Corporation had forward whole mortgage loan purchase commitments of $4.6 billion, all of which were settled in January and February 2004. At December 31, 2003, the Corporation had no forward whole mortgage loan sale commitments. The Corporation has entered into operating leases for certain of its premises and equipment. Commitments under these leases approximate $1.2 billion per year for each of the years 2004 through 2008 and $3.5 billion for all years thereafter. Other GuaranteesThe Corporation sells products that offer book value protection primarily to plan sponsors of ERISA-governed pension plans such as 401(k) plans, 457 plans, etc. 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 withdraw funds when market value is below 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 zero coupon bonds with the proceeds of the liquidated assets to assure the return of principal. To hedge 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 booked as derivatives and marked to market in the trading portfolio. At December 31, 2003 and 2002, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $24.9 billion and $19.7 billion, respectively, with estimated maturity dates between 2005 and 2033. As of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Corporation has never made a payment under these products, and management believes that the probability of payments under these guarantees is remote.The Corporation also 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 at the preset future date between the proceeds of the liquidated assets and the purchase price of the zero-coupon bonds. These guarantees are booked as derivatives and marked to market in the trading portfolio. At December 31, 2003 and 2002, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $7.4 billion and $4.1 billion, respectively; however, as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products, and management believes that the probability of payments under these guarantees is remote. These guarantees have an approximate term ending between 2005 and 2010. 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. 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 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. Management has assessed the probability of making such payments in the future as remote. The Corporation has entered into additional guarantee agreements, including lease end obligation agreements, partial credit guarantees on certain leases, sold risk participation swaps and sold put options that require gross settlement. The maximum potential future payment under these agreements was approximately $1.3 billion and $575 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The estimated maturity dates of these obligations are between 2004 and 2025. As of December 31, 2003 and 2002, the Corporation had made no material payments under these products. For additional information on recourse obligations related to mortgage loans sold and other guarantees related to securitizations, see Note 9 of the consolidated financial statements. Litigation and Regulatory MattersIn the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to a number of pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. In certain of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Corporation and its subsidiaries and certain of these actions and proceedings are based on alleged violations of consumer protection, securities, environmental, banking and other laws.In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, the Corporation cannot state what the eventual outcome of pending matters will be; however, based on current knowledge, management does not believe that liabilities, if any, arising from pending litigation or regulatory matters, including the litigation and regulatory matters described below, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Corporation but may be material to the Corporation's operating results for any particular quarter. Mutual Fund OperationsOn September 3, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York (NYAG) simultaneously filed and settled a complaint against Canary Capital Partners, LLC, et al. (collectively, Canary). The complaint alleged, among other things, that Canary engaged in improper trading with certain mutual funds in the Nations Funds family (Nations Funds). Specifically, the NYAG alleged that Canary engaged in activities that it characterized as "market timing" and "late trading." The Corporation is cooperating fully with the NYAG, the SEC and other regulators in connection with these inquiries.On September 16, 2003, the NYAG announced a criminal action, and the SEC announced a civil action, against a former employee of Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS). The complaints allege that this former employee played a key role in enabling Canary to engage in "late trading" of shares of Nations Funds and other mutual funds in violation of state and federal law. The Corporation has announced that it will establish a restitution fund for shareholders of the Nations Funds who were harmed by Canary's late trading and market timing practices. In addition, the Corporation announced that it will provide restitution for shareholders of third party mutual funds who were harmed by any late trading activities by Canary that are found to have occurred through the Corporation in the event restitution is not otherwise available from Canary, its affiliates, its investors or from any other third parties. The Corporation has also committed to return to the Nations Funds all funds management and advisory fees related to the Canary market timing agreement. The Corporation has named several key leaders and advisors external to the Corporation to review mutual fund practices. These individuals are currently leading an independent review of the Corporation's mutual fund policies and practices, including a complete legal and regulatory compliance review of the Corporation's mutual fund business, and coordinating a detailed review of all technology, control, and compliance systems related to the mutual fund business, including all systems relating to sales, clearing, and derivative and brokerage operations. The Corporation is developing new policies to eliminate all lending, derivatives, brokerage services or any other services relating to mutual fund trading activity by clients known to the Corporation to engage in active mutual fund market timing not permitted by the targeted funds. The Corporation has committed that the market timing policies being established will no longer permit special exceptions. The independent trustees of the Board of Trustees of the Nations Funds have retained an independent firm to evaluate the extent of any adverse monetary impact to any Nations Fund in which the Nations Funds' adviser permitted a discretionary market timing agreement. They also announced that they would evaluate whether any additional steps are appropriate to assure Nations Funds shareholders that the Nations Funds are being managed in their best interests. In addition, the independent trustees announced that the Board of Trustees, with the assistance of the independent firm, will conduct a review of the issues relating to late trading in Nations Funds, consider the results of the review of these issues being conducted by the Corporation, and take action as appropriate. As of the date hereof, a number of lawsuits and regulatory proceedings have been filed against the Corporation, its affiliates and associates in connection with these circumstances, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties, federal securities laws, the ERISA Act, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 as well as contractual and other common law claims. The Corporation has also received shareholder derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Corporation alleging various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, against the Board of Directors in connection with these matters. Additional lawsuits or regulatory proceedings presenting similar or additional allegations and requests for relief arising out of these circumstances could be filed in the future against the Corporation and related parties. During the quarter ended September 30, 2003, the Corporation recognized a $100 million charge to income in connection with these matters. The Corporation, however, cannot determine at this time the eventual outcome, timing or impact of these matters. Accordingly, it is possible that additional charges in the future may be required. Enron Corporation (Enron) Securities LitigationThe Corporation was named as a defendant, along with a number of commercial and investment banks and their holding companies, certain former Enron officers and directors, law firms and accountants, in a putative consolidated class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas filed on April 8, 2002 entitled Newby v. Enron. The amended complaint, which was filed in May 2003 and is now the operative complaint, alleges claims against the Corporation and BAS under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the role of BAS as an underwriter of two public offerings of Enron debt and as an initial purchaser in a private placement of debt issued by an Enron-affiliated company. The Corporation and BAS have moved to dismiss all of the claims asserted against them in the operative complaint. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is fully briefed and remains pending.In addition, the Corporation and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants or third-party defendants, along with other commercial and investment banks and many other parties, in various other individual and putative class actions relating to Enron. The complaints assert claims under federal securities laws, state securities laws and/or state common law or statutes. The majority of these actions were either filed in or have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and consolidated or coordinated with Newby v. Enron. The Corporation cannot determine at this time the eventual outcome, timing or impact of these matters. WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) Securities LitigationBAS, Banc of America Securities Limited (BASL), and other underwriters of WorldCom bonds issued in 2000 and 2001, as well as former officers and directors of WorldCom and other parties, have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled WorldCom Securities Litigation. The operative complaint alleges claims against BAS and BASL under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with 2000 and 2001 public bond offerings and is brought on behalf of purchasers and acquirers of bonds issued in or traceable to these offerings. On October 24, 2003, United States District Court Judge Denise Cote certified a class consisting of "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of WorldCom during the period beginning April 29, 1999 through and including June 25, 2002 and who were injured thereby." Fact discovery is presently proceeding in this class action and a trial date has been set for January 10, 2005.In addition, the Corporation, BAS and BASL, along with other underwriters, certain holding companies affiliated with the underwriters, a former Salomon Smith Barney telecommunications analyst, certain former officers and directors of WorldCom and WorldCom's former auditors have been named as defendants in numerous individual actions that were filed in either federal or state courts arising out of alleged accounting irregularities of the books and records of WorldCom. Plaintiffs in these actions are typically institutional investors, including state pension funds, who allegedly purchased debt securities issued by WorldCom pursuant to public offerings in 1997, 1998, 2000 or 2001. The majority of the complaints assert only claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, but some complaints also include claims under the Exchange Act of 1934, state securities laws, other state statutes and under common law theories. Most of these cases were filed in state court and subsequently removed (as related to WorldCom's bankruptcy) by defendants to federal courts and then transferred by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to be consolidated with WorldCom Securities Litigation for pre-trial purposes. Seven of these actions, which have been removed, were remanded to state courts in Alabama (2), Tennessee, Pennsylvania (3) and Illinois. Certain plaintiffs in actions transferred to the Southern District of New York have filed an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that their actions were not properly removed to federal court because a provision in the Securities Act prevented such removals. Defendants, including the underwriters, have argued that removal was proper. Additional complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of WorldCom stock in state courts in Mississippi against the Corporation and BAS, as well as certain former officers and directors of WorldCom, other commercial and investment banks and other parties. These cases have also been transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and consolidated with WorldCom Securities Litigation for pre-trial purposes. The Corporation cannot determine at this time the eventual outcome, timing or impact of these matters. Adelphia Communications Corporation (Adelphia) Securities LitigationBank of America, N.A. and BAS are defendants in several private civil actions relating to Adelphia which have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions include a class action and various individual actions. BAS was a member of seven underwriting syndicates of securities issued by Adelphia, and Bank of America, N.A. was an agent and/or lender in connection with five credit facilities in which Adelphia subsidiaries were borrowers. Additional defendants include other members of those syndicates, underwriters for additional Adelphia securities offerings, lenders and agents for that and other credit facilities, former Adelphia insiders and members of its board of directors, and Adelphia's outside auditors and counsel. The complaints allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Bank of America, N.A. and BAS are also defendants in an adversary proceeding pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The proceeding is brought by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Adelphia Bankruptcy Proceedings (the Creditors Committee) on behalf of Adelphia; however, the Bankruptcy Court has not yet given the Creditors Committee authority to bring this lawsuit. The adversary proceeding complaint names over 400 defendants and asserts over 50 claims under federal statute (including Bank Holding Company Act), state common law and various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Creditors Committee seeks avoidance and recovery of payments, equitable subordination, disallowance and recharacterization of claims and recovery of damages in an unspecified amount. Bank of America, N.A., BAS and other investment bank defendants have filed motions to dismiss. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders in the Adelphia Bankruptcy Proceedings has filed a motion seeking to intervene in the adversary proceeding and to file its own complaint. The proposed complaint is similar to the Creditor's Committee complaint, except that it also asserts claims under RICO and various state law theories. The Corporation cannot determine at this time the eventual outcome, timing or impact of these matters. Paul J. Miller v. Bank of America, N.A.On August 13, 1998, Bank of America, N.A.'s predecessor was named as a defendant in this class action challenging its practice, consistent with the banking industry, of debiting accounts that receive, by direct deposit, governmental benefits to repay fees incurred in those accounts. The action alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violations of certain California laws. On October 16, 2001, a class was certified consisting of more than one million California residents who have, had or will have, at any time after August 13, 1994, a deposit account with Bank of America, N.A. into which payments of public benefits are or have been directly deposited by the government. The case proceeded to trial on January 20, 2004. On February 25, 2004, at the conclusion of the jury phase of the trial, the jury found in Bank of America, N.A.'s favor on three of the four claims presented to the jury. As to the fourth claim, alleging that Bank of America, N.A. violated certain California laws, the jury imposed damages of approximately $75 million and awarded the class representative $275,000 in emotional distress damages. The jury also assessed a $1,000 penalty as to those members of the class suffering substantial economic or emotional harm as a result of the practice but did not determine which or how many class members are entitled to the penalty. This and other legal issues remain outstanding in the trial court.The Corporation believes that this case is without merit and plans to appeal any adverse judgement. The Corporation cannot determine at this time the eventual outcome, timing or impact of this matter. D.E. Shaw LitigationFollowing the merger of NationsBank Corporation and BankAmerica Corporation in September 1998, the Corporation and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in class actions brought on behalf of persons who purchased NationsBank or BankAmerica shares between August 4, 1998 and September 30, 1998; persons who purchased shares of the Corporation between October 1 and October 13, 1998, and persons who held NationsBank or BankAmerica shares as of the merger. The claims on behalf of the purchasers and the persons who held NationsBank shares as of the merger principally rested on the allegation that the Corporation or its predecessors failed to disclose material facts concerning a $1.4 billion financial relationship between BankAmerica Corporation and D.E. Shaw & Co. that resulted in a $372 million charge to the Corporation's earnings in the quarter ending September 30, 1998. The claims of the persons who held BankAmerica shares as of the merger principally rested on the allegation that the defendants misrepresented a "takeover" of BankAmerica Corporation as a "merger of equals."On November 2, 2002, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the Federal Court), the Court to which all federal actions had been transferred, entered a final judgment dismissing the actions with prejudice. The Federal Court entered the judgment after approving a settlement providing for payment of $333 million to the classes of purchasers and holders of NationsBank shares and $157 million to the classes of purchasers of BankAmerica and Corporation shares and holders of BankAmerica shares (all amounts to bear interest at the 90-day Treasury Bill Rate from March 6, 2002 to the date of payment). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on appeal by certain objecting plaintiffs and class members on December 2, 2003, and denied a petition for rehearing on January 9, 2004. It is expected that, in accordance with its terms, the settlement will become final in April 2004 unless further review is sought in the Supreme Court of the United States. There remain pending several actions in California that have been stayed since April 2000, when the Federal Court enjoined the plaintiffs in those actions from purporting to prosecute their claims on behalf of a class. RegulatoryIn the course of its business, the Corporation is subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries and investigations. Two of the Corporation's subsidiaries, BAS and Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (BAI), are registered broker/dealers under the federal securities laws and are subject to regulation by the SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers, the New York Stock Exchange and state securities regulators. In connection with several, formal and informal, investigations by those agencies, BAS and BAI have received numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of its regulated activities.The SEC is currently conducting a formal investigation with respect to certain trading and research-related activities of BAS during the period 1999 through 2001. To date, the SEC staff has not indicated whether it intends to recommend any enforcement action in connection with these trading and research-related activities. On December 30, 2003, however, BAS was advised by the SEC staff that it does intend to recommend action against BAS with respect to alleged books and records violations related to the preservation and production of materials requested during the investigation of the trading and research-related activities. BAS is cooperating with the SEC staff with respect to the ongoing investigation and is also working with the staff to reach a resolution of the books and records matter. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| << Previous | Next: Note 14 Shareholders' Equity and Earnings Per Common Share >> |
||
|
© 2004 Bank of America Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
||