2005 Summary Annual Report: Form 10-K: Note 13 - Commitments 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 instruments recorded on the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.

The Corporation enters into commitments to extend credit such as loan commitments, SBLCs and commercial letters of credit to meet the financing needs of its customers. The outstanding unfunded lending commitments shown in the following table have been reduced by amounts participated to other financial institutions of $30.4 billion and $23.4 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004. The carrying amount for these commitments, which represents the liability recorded related to these instruments, at December 31, 2005 and 2004 was $458 million and $520 million. At December 31, 2005, the carrying amount included deferred revenue of $63 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $395 million. At December 31, 2004, the carrying amount included deferred revenue of $118 million and a reserve for unfunded lending commitments of $402 million.

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.

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 creditworthiness 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 obtaining 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 maximum exposure to credit loss is represented by the contractual amount of these instruments.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, charge cards (nonrevolving card lines) to individuals and government entities guaranteed by the U.S. government in the amount of $9.4 billion and $10.9 billion were not included in credit card line commitments in the previous table. The outstanding balances related to these charge cards were $171 million and $205 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

At December 31, 2005, the Corporation had whole mortgage loan purchase commitments of $4.0 billion, all of which will settle in the first quarter of 2006. At December 31, 2004, the Corporation had whole mortgage loan purchase commitments of $3.3 billion, all of which settled in the first quarter of 2005. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, 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 $1.3 billion in 2006, $1.1 billion in 2007, $1.1 billion in 2008, $799 million in 2009, $650 million in 2010 and $3.5 billion for all years thereafter.

In 2005, the Corporation entered into an agreement for the committed purchase of retail automotive loans over a five-year period, ending June 30, 2010. In 2005, the Corporation purchased $5.0 billion of such loans and at December 31, 2005, the remaining commitment amount was $47.0 billion. Under the agreement, the Corporation is committed to purchase up to $7.0 billion of such loans for the period January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 and up to $10.0 billion in each of the agreement’s next four fiscal years.

The Corporation sells products that offer book value protection primarily to plan sponsors of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governed pension plans, such as 401(k) plans and 457 plans. 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 manage 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, 2005 and 2004, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $34.0 billion and $26.3 billion with estimated maturity dates between 2006 and 2035. As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Corporation has not 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, 2005 and 2004, the notional amount of these guarantees totaled $6.5 billion and $8.1 billion. These guarantees have various maturities ranging from 2006 to 2016. At December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Corporation had not made a payment under these products, and management believes that the probability of payments under these guarantees is remote.

The Corporation also has written put options on highly rated fixed income securities. Its obligation under these agreements is to buy back the assets at predetermined contractual yields in the event of a severe market disruption in the short-term funding market. These agreements have various maturities ranging from two to seven years, and the pre-determined yields are based on the quality of the assets and the structural elements pertaining to the market disruption. The notional amount of these put options was $803 million and $653 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004. Due to the high quality of the assets and various structural protections, management believes that the probability of incurring a loss under these agreements is remote.

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, real estate joint venture guarantees, sold risk participation swaps and sold put options that require gross settlement. The maximum potential future payment under these agreements was approximately $1.8 billion and $2.1 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004. The estimated maturity dates of these obligations are between 2006 and 2033. The Corporation has made no material payments under these guarantees.

The Corporation provides credit and debit card processing services to various merchants, processing credit and debit card transactions on their behalf. In connection with these services, a liability may arise in the event of a billing dispute between the merchant and a cardholder that is ultimately resolved in the cardholder’s favor and the merchant defaults upon its obligation to reimburse the cardholder. A cardholder, through its issuing bank, generally has until the later of up to four months after the date a transaction is processed or the delivery of the product or service to present a chargeback to the Corporation as the merchant processor. If the Corporation is unable to collect this amount from the merchant, it bears the loss for the amount paid to the cardholder. In 2005 and 2004, the Corporation processed $352.9 billion and $143.1 billion of transactions and recorded losses as a result of these chargebacks of $13 million and $6 million.

At December 31, 2005 and 2004, the Corporation held as collateral approximately $248 million and $203 million of merchant escrow deposits which the Corporation has the right to set off against amounts due from the individual merchants. The Corporation also has the right to offset any payments with cash flows otherwise due to the merchant. Accordingly, the Corporation believes that the maximum potential exposure is not representative of the actual potential loss exposure. The Corporation believes the maximum potential exposure for chargebacks would not exceed the total amount of merchant transactions processed through Visa and MasterCard for the last four months, which represents the claim period for the cardholder, plus any outstanding delayed-delivery transactions. As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the maximum potential exposure totaled approximately $118.2 billion and $93.4 billion.

Within the Corporation’s brokerage business, the Corporation has contracted with a third party to provide clearing services that include underwriting margin loans to the Corporation’s clients. This contract stipulates that the Corporation will indemnify the third party for any margin loan losses that occur in their issuing margin to the Corporation’s clients. The maximum potential future payment under this indemnification was $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion at December 31, 2005 and 2004. Historically, any payments made under this indemnification have been immaterial. As these margin loans are highly collateralized by the securities held by the brokerage clients, the Corporation has assessed the probability of making such payments in the future as remote. This indemnification would end with the termination of the clearing contract.

For additional information on recourse obligations related to residential mortgage loans sold and other guarantees related to securitizations, see Note 9 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.

In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to many pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. Certain of these actions and proceedings are based on alleged violations of consumer protection, securities, environmental, banking, employment and other laws. In certain of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Corporation and its subsidiaries.

In the ordinary course of business, the Corporation and its subsidiaries are also subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries and investigations. Certain subsidiaries of the Corporation are registered broker/dealers or investment advisors 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 formal and informal inquiries by those agencies, such subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the cases present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Corporation cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be.

In accordance with SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies”, the Corporation establishes reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, the Corporation does not establish reserves. In some of the matters described below, including but not limited to the Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A. matter, loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable in the view of management, and, accordingly, reserves have not been established for those matters. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies, if any, arising from pending litigation and 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 reporting period.

Adelphia Communications Corporation (Adelphia)

Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) and Banc of America Securities LLC (BAS) are defendants, among other defendants, in a putative class action and individual civil actions relating to Adelphia. The first of these actions was filed in June 2002; these actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BAS was a member of seven underwriting syndicates of securities issued by Adelphia, and BANA was an agent and/or lender in connection with five credit facilities in which Adelphia subsidiaries were borrowers. Fleet National Bank (FNB) and Fleet Securities, Inc. (FSI) are also named as defendants in certain of the actions. FSI was a member of three underwriting syndicates of securities issued by Adelphia, and FNB was a lender in connection with four credit facilities in which Adelphia subsidiaries were borrowers. The complaints allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and various state law theories. The complaints seek damages of unspecified amounts.

The court has granted the motions of BANA, BAS and other bank defendants to dismiss certain class plaintiffs’ claims on statute of limitations grounds. The court permitted plaintiffs who purchased bonds in a 2001 $750 million bond offering, of which BAS underwrote fifty percent, to assert claims against BAS relating to that offering and certain other offerings made under the same registration statement. The court has also granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss certain of the individual actions. Other motions to dismiss the class action and certain of the individual actions remain pending.

BANA, BAS, FNB, and FSI are also defendants in an adversary proceeding brought by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia and Adelphia as co-plaintiffs that had been pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit names over 400 defendants and asserts over 50 claims under federal statutes, including the Bank Holding Company Act, state common law, and various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plaintiffs seek avoidance and recovery of payments, equitable subordination, disallowance and re-characterization of claims, and recovery of damages in an unspecified amount. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Adelphia has intervened in this proceeding and filed its own complaint, which is similar to the unsecured creditors’ committee complaint and also asserts claims under RICO and additional state law theories. BANA, BAS and FSI have filed motions to dismiss both complaints. On February 9, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overseeing the Adelphia securities litigation granted the motions of the adversary defendants to withdraw the adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court, except with respect to the pending motions to dismiss.

Data Treasury

The Corporation and BANA have been named as defendants in an action filed by Data Treasury Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have “provided, sold, installed, utilized, and assisted others to use and utilize image-based banking and archival solutions” in a manner that infringes United States Patent Nos. 5,910,988 and 6,032,137. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. The court has scheduled a trial of this action for October 2, 2007.

The Corporation and BANA have been named as defendants, along with 54 other defendants, in an action filed by Data Treasury Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff alleges that the Corporation and BANA, among other defendants, are “making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, directly, contributory, and/or by inducement, without authority, products and services that fall within the scope of the claims of” United States Patent Nos. 5,265,007; 5,583,759; 5,717,868; and 5,930,778. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement.

In re Initial Public Offering Securities

Beginning in 2001, Robertson Stephens, Inc. (an investment banking subsidiary of FleetBoston that ceased operations during 2002), BAS, other underwriters, and various issuers and others, were named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the underwriting of initial public offerings (IPOs) and seeking unspecified damages. Robertson Stephens, Inc. and BAS were named in certain of the 309 purported class actions that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants failed to make certain required disclosures and manipulated prices of IPO securities through, among other things, alleged agreements with institutional investors receiving allocations to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket, and false and misleading analyst reports. On October 13, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motions to certify as class actions six of the 309 cases. On June 30, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the underwriter defendants’ petition for permission to appeal the court’s class certification order. The appeal is pending.

The plaintiffs have reached a settlement with 298 of the issuer defendants, in which the issuer defendants guaranteed that the plaintiffs will receive at least $1.0 billion in the settled actions and assigned to the plaintiffs the issuers’ interest in all claims against the underwriters for “excess compensation.” On February 15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York conditionally approved the issuer defendants’ settlement. A fairness hearing is scheduled for April 24, 2006.

Robertson Stephens, Inc. and other underwriters also have been named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the federal antitrust laws alleging that the underwriters conspired to manipulate the aftermarkets for IPO securities and to extract anticompetitive fees in connection with IPOs. The complaint seeks declaratory relief and unspecified treble damages. On September 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the antitrust class actions, remanding the cases to the district court for further proceedings. The defendants have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which is pending.

Interchange Anti-trust Litigation

The Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in putative class actions that have been transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under the caption In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation. Defendants include other financial institutions and, among others, Visa and MasterCard. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of retail merchants and allege, among other claims, that defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange and merchant discount fees and that certain practices that prohibit merchants from charging cardholders for fees the merchant pays to the credit card companies violate the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages and injunctive relief.

Miller

On August 13, 1998, a predecessor of BANA was named as a defendant in a class action filed in Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entitled Paul J. Miller v. Bank of America, N.A., challenging its practice of debiting accounts that received, 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 BANA 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 March 4, 2005, the trial court entered a judgment that awards the plaintiff class restitution in the amount of $284 million, plus attorneys’ fees, and provides that class members whose accounts were assessed an insufficient funds fee in violation of law suffered substantial emotional or economic harm and, therefore, are entitled to an additional $1,000 penalty. The judgment also includes injunctive relief.

On May 13, 2005, BANA filed with the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, a notice of appeal and, on May 16, 2005, a writ of supersedeas, seeking a stay of the trial court’s judgment pending appeal. On November 22, 2005, the Court of Appeal granted BANA’s writ, staying the judgment, including the injunction, pending appeal. The appeal remains pending.

Mutual Fund Operations Matters

In early 2005, the Corporation entered into settlement agreements with the New York Attorney General and the SEC relating to late trading and market timing of mutual funds. The Corporation is continuing to respond to inquiries from federal and state regulatory and law enforcement agencies concerning mutual fund related matters.

In addition, lawsuits seeking unspecified damages concerning mutual fund trading were brought against the Corporation and its pre-merger FleetBoston subsidiaries, including putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of shareholders in Nations Funds mutual funds, derivative actions brought on behalf of one or more Nations Funds mutual funds by Nations Funds shareholders, putative ERISA class actions brought on behalf of participants in Bank of America Corporation’s 401(k) plan, derivative actions brought against the Corporation’s directors on behalf of the Corporation by shareholders in the Corporation, class actions and derivative actions brought by shareholders in third-party mutual funds alleging that the Corporation or its subsidiaries facilitated improper trading in those funds, and a private attorney general action brought under California law. The lawsuits filed to date with respect to pre-merger FleetBoston subsidiaries include putative class actions purportedly brought on behalf of shareholders in Columbia mutual funds, derivative actions brought on behalf of one or more Columbia mutual funds or trusts by Columbia mutual fund shareholders, and an individual shareholder action.

All lawsuits pending in federal courts with respect to alleged late trading or market timing in mutual funds have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated pre-trial proceedings under the caption In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, other than a putative class action complaint filed on February 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging, among other things, market timing in the Nations Funds. Motions to remand to state court remain pending in two of those lawsuits. One lawsuit that originated in state court was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Pursuant to an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed that action. On January 6, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s petition for review on the issue of whether the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order.

On August 25, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the state law claims and derivative claims filed by Janus shareholders against the Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries. The claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were not dismissed. On November 3, 2005, the court dismissed the state law claims and derivative claims filed against the Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries by shareholders in various third-party mutual funds. The claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were not dismissed. Also on November 3, 2005, the court dismissed the claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the claims under Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA) and the state law claims against the Corporation and certain of its pre-merger FleetBoston subsidiaries. The claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 36(b) of the ICA were not dismissed.

On December 15, 2005, the Corporation and its named subsidiaries entered into a settlement of the direct and derivative claims brought on behalf of the Nations Funds shareholders and the ERISA claims brought on behalf of Bank of America Corporation’s 401(k) plan participants. Among other conditions, the settlement is contingent upon a minimum threshold amount being received by the Nations Funds shareholders and/or the Nations Funds mutual funds from the previously established regulatory settlement fund consisting of $250 million in disgorgement and $125 million in civil penalties paid by the Corporation in 2005. The settlement is subject to court approval. If the settlement is approved, the Corporation and its named subsidiaries would pay settlement administration costs and fees to plaintiffs’ counsel as approved by the court.

Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A.

On December 24, 2003, Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. was admitted into insolvency proceedings in Italy, known as “extraordinary administration.” The Corporation, through certain of its subsidiaries, including BANA, provided financial services and extended credit to Parmalat and its related entities. On June 21, 2004, Extraordinary Commissioner Dr. Enrico Bondi filed with the Italian Ministry of Production Activities a plan of reorganization for the restructuring of the companies of the Parmalat group that are included in the Italian extraordinary administration proceeding.

In July 2004, the Italian Ministry of Production Activities approved the Extraordinary Commissioner’s restructuring plan, as amended, for the Parmalat group companies that are included in the Italian extraordinary administration proceeding. This plan was approved by the voting creditors of Parmalat and subsequently, on October 1, 2005, the Court of Parma, Italy issued its decision approving those claimants who would be recognized as creditors in the proceeding.

Litigation and investigations relating to Parmalat are pending in both Italy and the United States, and the Corporation is responding to inquiries concerning Parmalat from regulatory and law enforcement authorities in Italy and the United States.

Proceedings in Italy

On May 26, 2004, the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the Court of Milan, Italy filed criminal charges against Luca Sala, Luis Moncada, and Antonio Luzi, three former employees, alleging the crime of market manipulation in connection with a press release issued by Parmalat. The Public Prosecutor’s Office also filed a related charge against the Corporation asserting administrative liability based on an alleged failure to maintain an organizational model sufficient to prevent the alleged criminal activities of its former employees. Preliminary hearings began on this charge on February 22, 2006.

The main trial of the market manipulation charges against Messrs. Luzi, Moncada, and Sala began in the Court of Milan, Italy on September 28, 2005. Hearing dates in this trial are currently set through June 2006. The Corporation is participating in this trial as a party that has been damaged by the alleged actions of defendants other than its former employees, including former Parmalat officials. Additionally, pursuant to a December 19, 2005 court ruling, other third parties are participating in the trial who claim damages against BANA as a result of the alleged criminal violations of the Corporation’s former employees and other defendants.

Separately, The Public Prosecutor’s Office for the Court of Parma, Italy is conducting an investigation into the collapse of Parmalat. The Corporation has cooperated, and continues to cooperate, with The Public Prosecutor’s Office with respect to this investigation. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has given notice of its intention to file charges, including a charge of the crime of fraudulent bankruptcy under Italian criminal law, in connection with this investigation against the same three former employees of the Corporation who are named in the Milan criminal proceedings, Messrs. Luzi, Moncada and Sala.

Proceedings in the United States

On March 5, 2004, a First Amended Complaint was filed in a putative securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Southern Alaska Carpenters Pension Fund et al. v. Bonlat Financing Corporation et al., which names the Corporation as a defendant. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Parmalat securities. The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action against the Corporation for violations of the federal securities laws based upon the Corporation’s alleged role in the alleged Parmalat accounting fraud. This action was consolidated with several other putative class actions filed against multiple defendants, and on October 18, 2004, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed. Unspecified damages are being sought. On July 13, 2005, the court granted in its entirety the motion to dismiss filed by the Corporation, BANA and Banc of America Securities Limited in the consolidated putative class actions. The court granted the plaintiffs a right to file a second amended complaint. After the filing of the second amended complaint and the Corporation’s motion to dismiss such complaint, on February 9, 2006, the court granted the Corporation’s motion to dismiss in part, allowing the plaintiff to proceed on claims with respect to two transactions entered into between the Corporation and Parmalat. On February 27, 2006, the Corporation filed its answer to the second amended complaint.

On October 7, 2004, Enrico Bondi filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of Parmalat and its shareholders and creditors against the Corporation and various related entities, entitled Dr. Enrico Bondi, Extraordinary Commissioner of Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. (the Bondi Action). The complaint alleges federal and state RICO claims and various state law claims, including fraud. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $10.0 billion. The Bondi Action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial purposes with the putative class actions and other related cases against non-Bank of America defendants under the caption In re Parmalat Securities Litigation.

On August 5, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Corporation’s motion to dismiss the Bondi Action in part, dismissing ten of the twelve counts. After the plaintiff’s filing of a First Amended Complaint on September 9, 2005, and the Corporation’s motion to dismiss such complaint on January 31, 2006, the court granted the Corporation’s motion to dismiss in part, allowing the plaintiff to proceed on the previously dismissed claims with respect to three transactions entered into between the Corporation and Parmalat. On February 10, 2006, the Corporation filed its answer to the First Amended Complaint and also its request to file counterclaims in the Bondi Action.

On November 23, 2005, the Official Liquidators of Food Holdings Limited and Dairy Holdings Limited, two entities in liquidation proceedings in the Cayman Islands, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Corporation and several related entities, entitled Food Holdings Ltd, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al. (the Food Holdings Action). The complaint in the Food Holdings Action alleges that the Corporation and other defendants conspired with Parmalat in carrying out transactions involving the plaintiffs in connection with the funding of Parmalat’s Brazilian entities, and it asserts claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims. The complaint seeks damages in excess of $400 million. The Food Holdings Action was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other pending actions in the In Re Parmalat Securities Litigation matter.

On November 23, 2005, the Provisional Liquidators of Parmalat Capital Finance Limited (PCFL) (who are also the Official Liquidators of Food Holdings Ltd. and Dairy Holdings Ltd.) filed a complaint against the Corporation and several related entities in North Carolina state court for Mecklenburg County, entitled Parmalat Capital Finance Limited v. Bank of America Corp., et al. (the PCFL Action). PCFL is a Cayman Islands corporation that is in liquidation proceedings in Grand Cayman. The PCFL Action alleges that the Corporation and other defendants conspired with Parmalat insiders to loot and divert monies from PCFL, and it asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims. PCFL asserts that it lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the Corporation’s activities. The Corporation has filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The PCFL Action has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial purposes with the other Parmalat-related proceedings.

On December 15, 2005, certain purchasers of Parmalat-related private placement offerings filed first amended petitions against the Corporation and various related entities in state courts in Iowa, entitled Principal Global Investors, LLC, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. (Principal Global Investors) and Monumental Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. (Monumental Life Insurance Company). The actions allege violations of Iowa state securities law and various state law claims, and seek rescission and unspecified damages based upon the Corporation’s and related entities’ alleged roles in certain private placement offerings issued by Parmalat-related companies. On January 4 and 5, 2006, respectively, the Principal Global Investors case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, and the Monumental Life Insurance Company case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. On February 13, 2006, the Corporation filed its answers to each of these complaints. On February 15, 2006, these cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the In Re Parmalat Securities Litigation matter.

On January 18, 2006, Gerald K. Smith, in his capacity as Trustee of Farmland Dairies LLC Litigation Trust, filed a complaint against the Corporation, BANA, BAS, BASL, Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association and BankAmerica International Limited, as well as other financial institutions and accounting firms, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Gerald K. Smith, Litigation Trustee v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. (the “Farmland Action”). Prior to bankruptcy restructuring, Farmland Dairies LLC was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parmalat USA Corporation, which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parmalat SpA. The Farmland Action asserts claims of aiding and abetting, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy and related claims against the Bank of America defendants and other defendants. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. On February 23, 2006, the plaintiff filed its first amended complaint.

Pension Plan Matters

The Corporation is a defendant in a putative class action entitled William L. Pender, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. (formerly captioned Anita Pothier, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.), which was initially filed June 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The action is brought on behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of The Bank of America Pension Plan (formerly known as the NationsBank Cash Balance Plan) and The Bank of America 401(k) Plan (formerly known as the NationsBank 401(k) Plan). The Third Amended Complaint names as defendants the Corporation, BANA, The Bank of America Pension Plan, The Bank of America 401(k) Plan, the Bank of America Corporation Corporate Benefits Committee and various members thereof, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. The two named plaintiffs are alleged to be a current and a former participant in The Bank of America Pension Plan and 401(k) Plan.

The Third Amended Complaint alleges the defendants violated various provisions of ERISA, including that the design of The Bank of America Pension Plan violated ERISA’s defined benefit pension plan standards and that such plan’s definition of normal retirement age is invalid. In addition, the complaint alleges age discrimination in the design and operation of The Bank of America Pension Plan, unlawful lump sum benefit calculation, violation of ERISA’s “anti-backloading” rule, improper benefit to the Corporation and its predecessor, and various prohibited transactions and fiduciary breaches. The complaint further alleges that certain voluntary transfers of assets by participants in The Bank of America 401(k) Plan to The Bank of America Pension Plan violated ERISA.

The complaint alleges that current and former participants in these plans are entitled to greater benefits and seeks declaratory relief, monetary relief in an unspecified amount, equitable relief, including an order reforming The Bank of America Pension Plan, attorneys’ fees and interest.

The court has scheduled the case for trial in September 2006. On September 25, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The motion is pending.

On December 1, 2005, the named plaintiffs moved to certify classes consisting of, among others, (1) all persons who accrued or who are currently accruing benefits under The Bank of America Pension Plan and (2) all persons who elected to have amounts representing their account balances under The Bank of America 401(k) Plan transferred to The Bank of America Pension Plan. The motion for class certification is pending.

The IRS is conducting an audit of the 1998 and 1999 tax returns of The Bank of America Pension Plan and The Bank of America 401(k) Plan. This audit includes a review of voluntary transfers by participants of 401(k) Plan assets to The Bank of America Pension Plan and whether such transfers were in accordance with applicable law. In December 2005, the Corporation received a Technical Advice Memorandum from the National Office of the IRS that concludes that the amendments made to The Bank of America 401(k) Plan in 1998 to permit the voluntary transfers to The Bank of America Pension Plan violated the anti-cutback rule of Section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Corporation continues to participate in administrative proceedings with the IRS regarding issues raised in the audit.

On September 29, 2004, a separate putative class action, entitled Donna C. Richards v. FleetBoston Financial Corp. and the FleetBoston Financial Pension Plan (Fleet Pension Plan), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all former and current Fleet employees who on December 31, 1996, were not at least age 50 with 15 years of vesting service and who participated in the Fleet Pension Plan before January 1, 1997, and who have participated in the Fleet Pension Plan at any time since January 1, 1997.

The complaintalleges that FleetBoston or its predecessor violated ERISA by amending the Fleet Financial Group, Inc. Pension Plan (a predecessor to the Fleet Pension Plan) to add a cash balance benefit formula without notifying participants that the amendment significantly reduced their plan benefits, by conditioning the amount of benefits payable under the Fleet Pension Plan upon the form of benefit elected, by reducing the rate of benefit accruals on account of age, and by failing to inform participants of the correct amount of their pensions and related claims. The complaint also alleges that the Fleet Pension Plan violates the “anti-backloading” rule of ERISA.

The complaint seeks equitable and remedial relief, including a declaration that the cash balance amendment to the Fleet Pension Plan was ineffective, additional unspecified benefit payments, attorneys’ fees and interest.

On December 28, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On January 25, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. These motions are pending.

Refco

Beginning in October 2005, BAS was named as a defendant in several federal class action and derivative lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Refco Inc. The lawsuits variously name as other defendants Refco’s outside auditors, certain officers and directors of Refco, other financial services companies (including in two cases the Corporation), and other individuals and companies. The actions allege violations of federal securities laws and state laws in connection with the sale of Refco securities, including the Refco senior subordinated notes offering in August 2004 and the Refco initial public offering in August 2005. Customers of Refco have also named BAS, the Corporation and other underwriters as defendants in a federal class action under the federal securities laws. The complaints seek unspecified damages. BAS is also responding to various regulatory inquiries relating to Refco.

Trading and Research Activities

The SEC has been conducting a formal investigation with respect to certain trading and research-related activities of BAS. These matters primarily arose during the period 1999-2001 in BAS’ San Francisco operations. In September 2005, the SEC staff advised BAS that it intends to recommend to the SEC an enforcement action against BAS in connection with these matters. This matter remains pending.