STI 2018 Annual Report

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, continued 163 NOTE 21 – CONTINGENCIES Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous civil claims and lawsuits and subject to regulatory examinations, investigations, and requests for information. Some of these matters involve claims for substantial amounts. The Company’s experience has shown that the damages alleged by plaintiffs or claimants are often overstated, based on unsubstantiated legal theories, unsupported by facts, and/or bear no relation to the ultimate award that a court might grant. Additionally, the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. These factors make it difficult for the Company to provide a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes of claims in the aggregate or by individual claim. However, on a case-by-case basis, reserves are established for those legal claims in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company's financial statements at December 31, 2018 reflect the Company's current best estimate of probable losses associated with these matters, including costs to complywith various settlement agreements, where applicable. The actual costs of resolving these claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved. For a limited number of legal matters in which the Company is involved, theCompany is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of related reserves, if any. Management currently estimates these losses to range from $0 to approximately $150 million. 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 available at December 31, 2018. 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 of operations, 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 and Mastercard, 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 18, “Guarantees.” 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 ofGeorgia. 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 incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff'smotion for class certification and the Bank filed an appeal of the decision on November 3, 2017. Mutual Funds ERISA Class Action On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the “District Court”). Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs. On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the District Court. After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case . The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016. Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which among other things named five new defendants. On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16, 2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three individual defendants from action. On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. An additional motion for partial summary judgment was filed by defendants on October 5, 2018.