Annual Financial Report - 53 of 56

RNS Number : 6415S

HSBC Holdings PLC

18 March 2016

 

37  Contingent liabilities, contractual commitments and guarantees

Accounting policy

Contingent liabilities Contingent liabilities, which include certain guarantees and letters of credit pledged as collateral security and contingent liabilities related to legal proceedings or regulatory matters (see Note 40), are possible obligations that arise from past events whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence, or non-occurrence, of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of HSBC; or are present obligations that have arisen from past events but are not recognised because it is not probable that settlement will require the outflow of economic benefits, or because the amount of the obligations cannot be reliably measured. Contingent liabilities are not recognised in the financial statements but are disclosed unless the probability of settlement is remote. Financial guarantee contracts Financial guarantee contracts are contracts that require HSBC to make specified payments to reimburse the holder for a loss incurred because a specified debtor fails to make payment when due. Liabilities under financial guarantee contracts which are not classified as insurance contracts are recorded initially at their fair value, which is generally the fee received or present value of the fee receivable. Subsequently, financial guarantee liabilities are measured at the higher of the initial fair value, less cumulative amortisation, and the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the obligations. HSBC Holdings has issued financial guarantees and similar contracts to other Group entities. HSBC elects to account for certain guarantees as insurance contracts in HSBC Holdings' financial statements, in which case they are measured and recognised as insurance liabilities. This election is made on a contract by contract basis, and is irrevocable.

Contingent liabilities, contractual commitments and guarantees

		HSBC				HSBC Holdings
		2015		2014		2015		2014
		$m		$m		$m		$m
Guarantees and contingent liabilities
Guarantees		85,855		86,385		68,333		52,023
Other contingent liabilities		490		346		-		-
At 31 December		86,345		86,731		68,333		52,023
Commitments
Documentary credits and short-term trade-related transactions		10,168		12,082		-		-
Forward asset purchases and forward forward deposits placed		981		823		-		-
Undrawn formal standby facilities, credit lines and other commitments to lend		655,281		638,475		-		16
At 31 December		666,430		651,380		-		16

The above table discloses the nominal principal amounts of commitments, guarantees and other contingent liabilities. Contingent liabilities arising from legal proceedings, regulatory and other matters against Group companies are disclosed in Notes 29 and 40. Nominal principal amounts represent the amounts at risk should the contracts be fully drawn upon and clients default. As a significant portion of guarantees and commitments is expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total of the nominal principal amounts is not indicative of future liquidity requirements.

Guarantees

		2015				2014
		Guarantees in favour of third parties		Guarantees by HSBC Holdings in favour of other Group entities		Guarantees in favour of third parties		Guarantees by HSBC Holdings in favour of other Group entities
		$m		$m		$m		$m
Guarantee type
Financial guarantees		27,643		55,000		30,406		36,800
Credit-related guarantees1		18,473		13,333		16,672		15,223
Other guarantees		39,739		-		39,307		-
At 31 December		85,855		68,333		86,385		52,023

1   Credit-related guarantees are contracts that have similar features to financial guarantee contracts but fail to meet the definition of a financial guarantee contract under IAS 39.

The amounts disclosed in the above table are nominal principal amounts and reflect HSBC's maximum exposure under a large number of individual guarantee undertakings. The risks and exposures arising from guarantees are captured and managed in accordance with HSBC's overall credit risk management policies and procedures. Approximately half the above guarantees have a term of less than one year. Guarantees with terms of more than one year are subject to HSBC's annual credit review process.

Financial Services Compensation Scheme

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme ('FSCS') has provided compensation to consumers following the collapse of a number of deposit takers. The compensation paid out to consumers is currently funded through loans from HM Treasury which at 31 December 2015 stood at approximately £16bn ($23.7bn).

The Group could be liable to pay a proportion of the outstanding amount that the FSCS has borrowed from HM Treasury.  The ultimate FSCS levy to the industry as a result of the collapses cannot currently be estimated reliably as it is dependent on various uncertain factors including the potential recoveries of assets by the FSCS and changes in the level of protected deposits and the population of FSCS members at the time.

Capital commitments

In addition to the commitments disclosed on page 441, at 31 December 2015 HSBC had $468m (2014: $656m) of capital commitments contracted but not provided for and $100m (2014: $101m) of capital commitments authorised but not contracted for.

Associates

HSBC's share of associates' contingent liabilities amounted to $39,222m at 31 December 2015 (2014: $47,593m). No matters arose where HSBC was severally liable.

38  Lease commitments

Accounting policy

Agreements which transfer substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to the ownership of assets are classified as finance leases. As a lessor under finance leases, HSBC presents the amounts due under the leases after deduction of unearned charges in 'Loans and advances to banks' or 'Loans and advances to customers'. As a lessee under finance leases, HSBC presents the leased assets in 'Property, plant and equipment' with the corresponding liability included in 'Other liabilities'. A finance lease asset and its corresponding liability are recognised initially at the fair value of the asset or, if lower, the present value of the minimum lease payments. All other leases are classified as operating leases. As lessor, HSBC presents assets subject to operating leases in 'Property, plant and equipment'. Impairment losses are recognised to the extent that carrying values are not fully recoverable. As a lessee, leased assets are not recognised on the balance sheet. Finance income or charges on finance leases are recognised in 'Net interest income' over the lease periods so as to give a constant rate of return. Rentals payable or receivable under operating leases are spread on a straight-line basis over the lease periods and are recognised in 'General and administrative expenses' or in 'Other operating income'.

Operating lease commitments

At 31 December 2015, future minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases for land, buildings and equipment were $5,333m (2014: $5,372m).

Finance lease receivables

HSBC leases a variety of assets to third parties under finance leases, including transport assets (such as aircraft), property and general plant and machinery. At the end of lease terms, assets may be sold to third parties or leased for further terms. Rentals are calculated to recover the cost of assets less their residual value, and earn finance income.

		2015						2014
		Total future             minimum            payments		Unearned                  finance                  income		Present                     value		Total future             minimum            payments		Unearned                  finance                  income		Present                     value
		$m		$m		$m		$m		$m		$m
Lease receivables:
- no later than one year		3,382		(332)		3,050		3,383		(374)		3,009
- later than one year and no later than five years		7,219		(837)		6,382		8,089		(980)		7,109
- later than five years		4,897		(702)		4,195		5,013		(744)		4,269
At 31 December		15,498		(1,871)		13,627		16,485		(2,098)		14,387

39  Structured entities

Accounting policy

A structured entity is an entity that has been designed so that voting or similar rights are not the dominant factor in deciding who controls the entity, for example when any voting rights relate to administrative tasks only, and key activities are directed by contractual arrangements. Structured entities often have restricted activities and a narrow and well defined objective. Structured entities are assessed for consolidation in accordance with the accounting policy set out in Note 1.

HSBC is mainly involved with structured entities through the securitisation of financial assets, conduits and investment funds.

HSBC's arrangements that involve structured entities are authorised centrally when they are established to ensure appropriate purpose and governance. The activities of structured entities administered by HSBC are closely monitored by senior management. The Group is involved with both consolidated and unconsolidated structured entities which are established either by HSBC or a third party, as detailed below.

Consolidated structured entities

Total assets of HSBC's consolidated structured entities, split by entity type

		Conduits		Securitisations		HSBC                 managed                         funds		Other		Total
		$bn		$bn		$bn		$bn		$bn
At 31 December 2015		25.9		5.6		8.2		5.7		45.4
At 31 December 2014		27.2		7.9		11.2		6.7		53.0

 

Conduits

HSBC has established and manages two types of conduits: securities investment conduits ('SIC's) and multi-seller conduits. These entities have been designed so that voting or similar rights are not the dominant factor in deciding who has control: in such cases, the relevant activities are directed by means of contractual arrangement. The conduits are consolidated as HSBC is exposed to or has the right to variable returns from its involvement with the entity and has the ability to affect its returns through its power over the entity.

Securities investment conduits

Solitaire, HSBC's principal SIC, purchases highly rated ABSs to facilitate tailored investment opportunities. At 31 December 2015, Solitaire held $6.2bn of ABSs (2014: $8.0bn). These are included within the disclosures of ABSs 'held through consolidated structured entities' on page 153. HSBC's other SICs, Mazarin, Barion and Malachite, evolved from the restructuring of the Group's structured investment vehicles in 2008.

·   Solitaire - Solitaire is currently funded entirely by commercial paper ('CP') issued to HSBC. Although HSBC continues to provide a liquidity facility, Solitaire has no need to draw on it as long as HSBC purchases its issued CP, which HSBC intends to do for the foreseeable future. At 31 December 2015, HSBC held $8bn of CP (2014: $9.5bn).

·   Mazarin - HSBC is exposed to the par value of Mazarin's assets through the provision of a liquidity facility equal to the lesser of the amortised cost of issued senior debt and the amortised cost of non-defaulted assets. At 31 December 2015, this amounted to $1.8bn (2014: $3.9bn). First loss protection is provided through the capital notes issued by Mazarin, which are substantially all held by third parties.

At 31 December 2015, HSBC held 2.7% of Mazarin's capital notes (2014: 1.2%) with a par value of $13m (2014: $10m) and a carrying amount of $4m (2014: $1.4m).

·   Barion and Malachite - HSBC's primary exposure to these SICs is represented by the amortised cost of the debt required to support the non-cash assets of the vehicles. At 31 December 2015, this amounted to $1.4bn (2014: $3.0bn). First loss protection is provided through the capital notes issued by these vehicles, which are substantially all held by third parties.

At 31 December 2015, HSBC held 13.7% of the capital notes (2014: 9.9%) issued by these vehicles with a par value of $42.2m (2014: $54.8m) and a carrying amount of $20.3m (2014: $10.1m).

Multi-seller conduits

Multi-seller conduits were established for the purpose of providing access to flexible market-based sources of finance for HSBC's clients. HSBC bears risk equal to the transaction-specific liquidity facilities offered to the multi-seller conduits amounting to $19.8bn at 31 December 2015 (2014: $15.4bn). First loss protection is provided by the originator of the assets, and not by HSBC, through transaction-specific credit enhancements. A layer of secondary loss protection is provided by HSBC in the form of programme-wide enhancement facilities.

Securitisations

HSBC uses structured entities to securitise customer loans and advances that it has originated in order to diversify its sources of funding for asset origination and capital efficiency purposes. The loans and advances are transferred by HSBC to the structured entities for cash or synthetically through credit default swaps, and the structured entities issue debt securities to investors.

HSBC managed funds

HSBC has established a number of money market and non-money market funds. Where it is deemed to be acting as principal rather than agent in its role as investment manager, HSBC controls and hence consolidates these funds.

Other

HSBC has also entered into a number of transactions in the normal course of business which include asset and structured finance transactions where it has control of the structured entity. In addition, HSBC is deemed to control a number of
third-party managed funds through its involvement as a principal in the funds.

Unconsolidated structured entities

The term 'unconsolidated structured entities' refers to all structured entities that are not controlled by HSBC. The Group enters into transactions with unconsolidated structured entities in the normal course of business to facilitate customer transactions and for specific investment opportunities.

The table below shows the total assets of unconsolidated structured entities in which HSBC had an interest at the reporting date and its maximum exposure to loss in relation to those interests.

Nature and risks associated with HSBC interests in unconsolidated structured entities

		Securitisations		HSBC                 managed                         funds		Non-HSBC                 managed                         funds		Other		Total
		$bn		$bn		$bn		$bn		$bn
Total assets of the entities		12.9		227.9		2,003.1		139.9		2,383.8
Total assets in relation to HSBC's interests in the unconsolidated structured entities		1.4		5.6		8.0		9.8		24.8
- trading assets		-		0.1		0.2		2.6		2.9
- financial assets designated at fair value		-		5.3		6.6		-		11.9
- derivatives		-		-		-		3.8		3.8
- loans and advances to banks		-		-		-		0.1		0.1
- loans and advances to customers		1.1		-		0.1		2.9		4.1
- financial investments		0.3		0.2		1.1		0.2		1.8
- other assets		-		-		-		0.2		0.2
Total liabilities in relation to HSBC's interests in the unconsolidated structured entities		-		-		-		(0.1)		(0.1)
Other liabilities		-		-		-		(0.1)		(0.1)
HSBC's maximum exposure at 31 December 2015		3.5		5.6		8.0		14.6		31.7
Total assets of the entities		11.0		308.5		2,899.9		32.8		3,252.2
Total assets in relation to HSBC's interests in the unconsolidated structured entities		0.8		7.8		8.3		7.7		24.6
- trading assets		-		0.1		0.1		4.6		4.8
- financial assets designated at fair value		-		5.2		2.3		-		7.5
- derivatives		-		-		-		1.3		1.3
- loans and advances to banks		-		-		-		0.1		0.1
- loans and advances to customers		0.8		-		-		1.5		2.3
- financial investments		-		2.5		5.9		0.1		8.5
- other assets		-		-		-		0.1		0.1
Total liabilities in relation to HSBC's interests in the unconsolidated structured entities		-		-		-		0.1		0.1
Other liabilities		-		-		-		0.1		0.1
HSBC's maximum exposure at 31 December 2014		0.8		7.8		8.3		11.1		28.0

The maximum exposure to loss from HSBC's interests in unconsolidated structured entities represents the maximum loss that HSBC could incur as a result of its involvement with unconsolidated structured entities regardless of the probability of the loss being incurred.

·   For commitments, guarantees and written credit default swaps, the maximum exposure to loss is the notional amount of potential future losses.

·   For retained and purchased investments in and loans to unconsolidated structured entities, the maximum exposure to loss is the carrying value of these interests at the balance sheet reporting date.

The maximum exposure to loss is stated gross of the effects of hedging and collateral arrangements entered into to mitigate HSBC's exposure to loss.

Securitisations

HSBC has interests in unconsolidated securitisation vehicles through holding notes issued by these entities. In addition, HSBC has investments in ABSs issued by third party structured entities as set out on page 153.

HSBC managed funds

HSBC establishes and manages money market funds and non-money market investment funds to provide customers with investment opportunities. Further information on funds under management is provided on page 96.

HSBC, as fund manager, may be entitled to receive management and performance fees based on the assets under management. HSBC may also retain units in these funds.

Non-HSBC managed funds

HSBC purchases and holds units of third-party managed funds in order to facilitate both business and customer needs. In addition, HSBC enters into derivative contracts to facilitate risk management solutions for non-HSBC managed funds. Note 16 provides information on derivatives entered into by HSBC.

Other

HSBC has established structured entities in the normal course of business, such as structured credit transactions for customers, to provide finance to public and private sector infrastructure projects, and for asset and structured finance transactions.

HSBC sponsored structured entities

Accounting policy

HSBC is considered to sponsor another entity if, in addition to ongoing involvement with the entity, it had a key role in establishing that entity or in bringing together the relevant counterparties so that the transaction which is the purpose of the entity could occur. HSBC is generally not considered a sponsor if the only involvement with the entity is merely administrative in nature.

The amount of assets transferred to and income received from such sponsored entities during 2015 and 2014 was not significant.

40  Legal proceedings and regulatory matters

HSBC is party to legal proceedings and regulatory matters in a number of jurisdictions arising out of its normal business operations. Apart from the matters described below, HSBC considers that none of these matters are material. The recognition of provisions is determined in accordance with the accounting policies set out in Note 29. While the outcome of legal proceedings and regulatory matters is inherently uncertain, management believes that, based on the information available to it, appropriate provisions have been made in respect of these matters as at 31 December 2015 (see Note 29). Where an individual provision is material, the fact that a provision has been made is stated and quantified, except to the extent doing so would be seriously prejudicial. Any provision recognised does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or legal liability. It is not practicable to provide an aggregate estimate of potential liability for our legal proceedings and regulatory matters as a class of contingent liabilities.

Securities litigation

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International, Inc. ('Household International') and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al., filed in August 2002 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the 'Illinois District Court'). The complaint asserted claims under the US Securities Exchange Act and alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household International's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the financial restatement. Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 1999 and October 2002.

A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favour of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict were raised in post-trial briefing.

In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class members, the court-appointed claims administrator reported to the Illinois District Court that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of those claims was approximately $2.2bn. The Illinois District Court directed further proceedings before a court-appointed Special Master to address certain issues and objections regarding the remaining claims.

In October 2013, the Illinois District Court entered a partial final judgement against the defendants in the amount of approximately $2.5bn (including pre-judgement interest). The defendants appealed that partial final judgement.

In addition to the partial judgement that has been entered, there are also approximately $625m in remaining claims, prior to the imposition of pre-judgement interest, that are still subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the Illinois District Court.

In May 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision reversing the partial final judgement of the Illinois District Court and remanding the case for a new trial on loss causation, which may entail a reassessment of the quantum of damages. On remand to the Illinois District Court, the case was reassigned to a different judge, who has issued various rulings on certain preliminary issues and has entered a scheduling order that includes a trial date in June 2016.

The timing and ultimate resolution of this matter remains highly uncertain, and given the complexity and uncertainties associated with a new trial on loss causation and a reassessment of the quantum of damages, there continues to be a wide range of possible outcomes. Depending on whether and to what extent the plaintiffs are able to demonstrate loss causation, the amount of damages, based upon the claims included in the reversed partial final judgement and the other remaining claims, as well as the application of pre-judgement interest, may be up to or exceeding $3.6bn. A provision has been recognised based on management's best estimate of probable outflows, but the amount of such provision is not disclosed as it would seriously prejudice the position of HSBC in the resolution of this matter.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

Bernard L. Madoff ('Madoff') was arrested in December 2008 and later pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme. He has acknowledged, in essence, that while purporting to invest his customers' money in securities, he in fact never invested in securities and used other customers' money to fulfil requests to return investments. His firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ('Madoff Securities'), is being liquidated in the US by a trustee (the 'Trustee').

Various non-US HSBC companies provided custodial, administration and similar services to a number of funds incorporated outside the US whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities. Based on information provided by Madoff Securities, as at 30 November 2008, the purported aggregate value of these funds was $8.4bn, an amount that includes fictitious profits reported by Madoff. Based on information available to HSBC, we have estimated that the funds' actual transfers to Madoff Securities minus their actual withdrawals from Madoff Securities during the time that HSBC serviced the funds totalled approximately $4bn. Various HSBC companies have been named as defendants in lawsuits arising out of Madoff Securities' fraud.

US/UK litigation: The Trustee has brought lawsuits against various HSBC companies in the US Bankruptcy Court and in the English High Court. The Trustee's ongoing US claims seek recovery of prepetition transfers pursuant to US bankruptcy law. The amount of these claims has not been pleaded or determined as against HSBC. The Trustee's English action seeks recovery of unspecified transfers from Madoff Securities to or through HSBC. HSBC has not yet been served with the Trustee's English action. The Trustee's deadline for serving the claim has been extended through the third quarter of 2016.

Alpha Prime Fund Ltd ('Alpha Prime') and Senator Fund SPC ('Senator'), co-defendants in the Trustee's US actions, have each brought cross-claims against HSBC. These funds have also sued HSBC in Luxembourg (discussed below). In June 2015, the US Bankruptcy Court heard HSBC's motion to dismiss Alpha Prime and Senator's cross-claims and a decision on that motion is pending.

Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited (together, 'Fairfield'), funds whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities, commenced multiple lawsuits in the US and the British Virgin Islands ('BVI') against fund shareholders, including various HSBC companies that acted as nominees for HSBC clients, seeking restitution of payments made in connection with share redemptions. Fairfield's US actions are stayed pending the outcome of the cases in the BVI (discussed below).

In September 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of purported class action claims against HSBC and others brought by investors in three Madoff-invested funds on grounds of forum non conveniens. In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court of Appeals to restore their class action claims on the basis of an alleged change of law. Plaintiffs' motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in June 2015.

In December 2014, three additional actions were filed in the US. The first is a purported class action brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'New York District Court') by direct investors in Madoff Securities who were holding their investments as of December 2008, asserting various common law claims and seeking to recover damages lost to Madoff Securities' fraud on account of HSBC's purported knowledge and alleged furtherance of the fraud. HSBC moved to dismiss this action in November 2015 and a decision on that motion is pending. The other two actions were both filed by SPV Optimal SUS Ltd ('SPV OSUS'), the purported assignee of the Madoff-invested company, Optimal Strategic US Equity Ltd. One of these actions was filed in New York state court and the other in New York District Court. In January 2015, SPV OSUS dismissed its federal lawsuit against HSBC. The state court action against HSBC remains pending.

In May 2015, an action was filed in New York District Court by two investors in the Madoff-invested fund Hermes International Fund Limited ('Hermes'), asserting various common law claims against HSBC and seeking to recover damages lost to Madoff Securities' fraud. HSBC's motion to dismiss the action was filed in January 2016 and a decision on that motion is pending.

BVI litigation: Beginning in October 2009, Fairfield commenced multiple lawsuits in the BVI against numerous fund shareholders, including various HSBC companies that acted as nominees for clients of HSBC's private banking business and other clients who invested in Fairfield. Fairfield is seeking restitution of redemption payments made by the funds to defendants on the grounds that they were mistakenly based on inflated net asset values. In April 2014, the UK Privy Council issued a ruling in favour of other defendants in the BVI actions, and issued its order in October 2014. The Privy Council ruling found in effect that Fairfield should not be entitled to recover share redemptions that were calculated on a net asset value per share based on fictitious profits, and were paid to shareholders prior to the collapse of Madoff Securities. Separately, a motion was brought by defendants before the BVI court challenging the authorisation of the Fairfield liquidator (appointed in July 2009) to pursue its claims in the US. That motion was heard in March 2015 and a decision is pending.

Bermuda litigation: In January 2009, Kingate Global Fund Limited and Kingate Euro Fund Limited (together, 'Kingate'), funds whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities, commenced an action in Bermuda against HSBC Bank Bermuda Limited for recovery of funds held in Kingate's accounts, fees and dividends. This action is currently pending, but is not expected to move forward until there is a resolution as to the Trustee's separate US actions against Kingate and HSBC Bank Bermuda Limited.

Thema Fund Limited ('Thema') and Hermes, funds whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities, each also brought three actions in Bermuda in 2009. The first set of actions was brought against HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Bermuda) Limited and seeks recovery of funds in frozen accounts held at HSBC. The second set of actions asserts liability against HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Bermuda) Limited in relation to claims for mistake, recovery of fees and damages for breach of contract. The third set of actions seeks return of fees from HSBC Bank Bermuda Limited and HSBC Securities Services (Bermuda). There has been little progress in these actions for several years, although in January 2015, Thema and Hermes served notice of intent to proceed in respect of the second set of actions referred to above.

Cayman Islands litigation: In February 2013, Primeo Fund (in official liquidation since April 2009), a Cayman Islands-based fund whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities, brought an action against the fund administrator, Bank of Bermuda (Cayman), and the fund custodian, HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) ('HSSL'), alleging breach of contract by the defendants and breach of fiduciary duty by HSSL. Primeo Fund claims damages from defendants (and equitable compensation from HSSL) to compensate it for alleged losses, including loss of profit. Trial is scheduled to begin in November 2016.

Luxembourg litigation: In April 2009, Herald Fund SPC ('Herald') (in official liquidation since July 2013) commenced action against HSSL before the Luxembourg District Court seeking restitution of all cash and securities Herald purportedly lost because of Madoff Securities' fraud, or in the alternative, money damages in the same amount. In March 2013, the Luxembourg District Court dismissed Herald's restitution claim for the return of the securities, although Herald's restitution claim for return of the cash and its claim for money damages were reserved. Herald appealed this judgement in May 2013. Written submissions on the merits are due to be filed by the parties in March 2016.

In October 2009, Alpha Prime commenced an action against HSSL before the Luxembourg District Court, alleging breach of contract and negligence in the appointment of Madoff Securities as a sub-custodian of Alpha Prime's assets. Alpha Prime requested a stay of these proceedings pending its negotiations with the Trustee in the US proceedings. The matter has been temporarily suspended at Alpha Prime's request.

In March 2010, Herald (Lux) SICAV ('Herald (Lux)') (in official liquidation since April 2009) commenced an action against HSSL before the Luxembourg District Court seeking restitution of securities, or the cash equivalent, or money damages in the alternative. Herald (Lux) has also requested the restitution of fees paid to HSSL as custodian and service agent of the fund. Written submissions on the merits are due to be filed by Herald (Lux) in March 2016.

In December 2014, Senator commenced a separate action against HSSL before the Luxembourg District Court, seeking the restitution of securities held as of the latest net asset value statement from November 2008, or in the alternative, money damages. The matter has been temporarily suspended at Senator's request.

In April 2015, Senator commenced a separate action against the Luxembourg branch of HSBC Bank plc before the Luxembourg District Court asserting identical claims to those asserted in Senator's action against HSSL. This action remains ongoing.

HSSL has been sued in various actions by shareholders in the Primeo Select Fund, Herald, Herald (Lux), and Hermes. These actions are in different stages, most of which have been dismissed, suspended or postponed.

Ireland litigation: In November 2013, Defender Limited, a fund whose assets were invested with Madoff Securities, commenced an action against HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited ('HTIE') and others, alleging breach of the custodian agreement and claiming damages and indemnification for fund losses. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.

In May 2013 and November 2013, settlements were reached in respect of claims filed against HTIE in the Irish High Court by Thema International Fund plc ('Thema International') and Alternative Advantage Plc ('AA'), respectively. Only two actions by individual Thema International shareholders against HTIE and Thema International remain active. An application to dismiss the two remaining shareholder claims was heard in December 2015 and a decision is pending.

In December 2014, a new proceeding against HTIE and HSBC Securities Services (Ireland) Limited was brought by SPV OSUS, alleging breach of the custodian agreement and claiming damages and indemnification for fund losses. In July 2015, HTIE brought a preliminary application to challenge the standing of SPV OSUS to bring proceedings against its service providers. Judgement was rendered in favour of HTIE in October 2015, resulting in the dismissal of the action. SPV OSUS filed an appeal, which is scheduled for hearing in January 2017.

There are many factors that may affect the range of possible outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of the various Madoff-related proceedings described above, including but not limited to the multiple jurisdictions in which the proceedings have been brought and the number of different plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings. Based upon the information currently available, management's estimate of possible aggregate damages that might arise as a result of all claims in the various Madoff-related proceedings is up to or exceeding $800m. Due to uncertainties and limitations of this estimate, the ultimate damages could differ significantly from this amount.

US mortgage-related investigations

In April 2011, following completion of a broad horizontal review of industry foreclosure practices, HSBC Bank USA N.A. ('HSBC Bank USA') entered into a consent cease-and-desist order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ('OCC'), and HSBC Finance Corporation ('HSBC Finance') and HSBC North America Holdings Inc. ('HNAH') entered into a similar consent order with the Federal Reserve Board ('FRB') (together with the OCC order, the 'Servicing Consent Orders'). The Servicing Consent Orders require prescribed actions to address the foreclosure practice deficiencies noted in the joint examination and described in the Servicing Consent Orders. HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance and HNAH continue to work with the OCC and the FRB to align their processes with the requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders and to implement operational changes as required; however, as set forth in a June 2015 amended consent order between HSBC Bank USA and the OCC (the 'Amended Consent Order'), HSBC Bank USA is not yet in compliance with all of the requirements of the OCC order. A failure to satisfy all requirements of the OCC order may result in a variety of regulatory consequences for HSBC Bank USA, including the imposition of civil money penalties. The Amended Consent Order includes business restrictions related to residential mortgage servicing that will remain in place until the OCC order is terminated. The restrictions include a prohibition against the bulk acquisition of residential mortgage servicing or residential mortgage servicing rights and a requirement to seek OCC supervisory non-objection to outsource any residential mortgage servicing activities that are not already outsourced as of the date of the Amended Consent Order.

The Servicing Consent Orders required an independent review of foreclosures pending or completed between January 2009 and December 2010 to determine if any borrower was financially injured as a result of an error in the foreclosure process (the 'Independent Foreclosure Review'). As required by the Servicing Consent Orders, an independent consultant was retained to conduct that review. In February 2013, HSBC Bank USA entered into an agreement with the OCC, and HSBC Finance and HNAH entered into an agreement with the FRB (together, the 'IFR Settlement Agreements'), pursuant to which the Independent Foreclosure Review ceased and was replaced by a broader framework under which HSBC and 12 other participating servicers agreed to provide, in the aggregate, over $9.3bn in cash payments and other assistance to help eligible borrowers. Pursuant to the IFR Settlement Agreements, HNAH made a cash payment of $96m into a fund used to make payments to borrowers that were in active foreclosure during 2009 and 2010 and is also providing other assistance, such as loan modifications, to help eligible borrowers. Borrowers who receive compensation will not be required to execute a release or waiver of rights and will not be precluded from pursuing litigation concerning foreclosure or other mortgage servicing practices. For participating servicers, including HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Finance, fulfilment of the terms of the IFR Settlement Agreements will satisfy the Independent Foreclosure Review requirements of the Servicing Consent Orders, including the wind-down of the Independent Foreclosure Review.

The Servicing Consent Orders do not preclude additional enforcement actions against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance or HNAH by regulatory, governmental or law enforcement agencies, such as the DoJ or state Attorneys General, which could include the imposition of civil money penalties and other sanctions relating to the activities that are the subject of the Servicing Consent Orders. In addition, the IFR Settlement Agreements do not preclude future private litigation concerning these practices.

Separate from the Servicing Consent Orders and the settlement related to the Independent Foreclosure Review discussed above, in February 2016, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance, HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. and HNAH entered into an agreement with the DoJ, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, other federal agencies (the 'Federal Parties') and the Attorneys General of 49 states and the District of Columbia (the 'State Parties') to resolve civil claims related to past residential mortgage loan origination and servicing practices (the 'National Mortgage Settlement Agreement'). The National Mortgage Settlement Agreement is similar to prior settlements reached with other US mortgage servicers and includes payment of $100m to be allocated among participating Federal and State Parties, and $370m in consumer relief provided through HSBC's loan modification programmes. The National Mortgage Settlement Agreement also sets forth national mortgage servicing standards to which HSBC will adhere.

In addition, in February 2016, the FRB announced the imposition against HSBC Finance and HNAH of a $131m civil money penalty in connection with the FRB's Servicing Consent Order of April 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the FRB order, the penalty will be satisfied by the cash payments made to the Federal Parties and the consumer relief provided pursuant to the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement.

The National Mortgage Settlement Agreement and the FRB order do not completely preclude other enforcement actions by regulatory, governmental or law enforcement agencies related to foreclosure and other mortgage servicing practices, including, but not limited to, matters relating to the securitisation of mortgages for investors, which could include the imposition of civil money penalties, criminal fines or other sanctions. In addition, these practices have in the past resulted in private litigation, and the National Mortgage Settlement Agreement would not preclude further private litigation concerning these practices.

US mortgage securitisation activity and litigation

HSBC Bank USA was a sponsor/seller of loans used to facilitate whole loan securitisations underwritten by HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. ('HSI'). From 2005 to 2007, HSBC Bank USA purchased and sold $24bn of such loans to HSI, which were subsequently securitised and sold by HSI to third parties. The outstanding principal balance on these loans was approximately $5.2bn as at 31 December 2015.

Participants in the US mortgage securitisation market that purchased and repackaged whole loans have been the subject of lawsuits and governmental and regulatory inquiries, which have been directed at groups within the US mortgage market such as servicers, originators, underwriters, trustees or sponsors of securitisations, and at particular participants within these groups. As the industry's residential mortgage foreclosure issues continue, HSBC Bank USA has taken title to an increasing number of foreclosed homes as trustee on behalf of various mortgage securitisation trusts. As nominal record owner of these properties, HSBC Bank USA has been sued by municipalities and tenants alleging various violations of law, including laws regarding property upkeep and tenants' rights. While HSBC believes and continues to maintain that the obligations at issue and any related liabilities are properly those of the servicer of each trust, HSBC continues to receive significant adverse publicity in connection with these and similar matters, including foreclosures that are serviced by others in the name of 'HSBC, as trustee'.

Between June and December 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed in state and federal court in New York and Ohio against HSBC Bank USA as trustee of over 280 mortgage securitisation trusts. These lawsuits are brought on behalf of the trusts by a putative class of investors including, amongst others, BlackRock and PIMCO funds. Similar lawsuits were filed simultaneously against other non-HSBC financial institutions that served as mortgage securitisation pool trustees. The complaints against HSBC Bank USA allege that the trusts have sustained losses in collateral value of approximately $38bn. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages resulting from alleged breaches of the US Trust Indenture Act, breach of fiduciary duties, negligence, breach of contract and breach of the common law duty of trust. HSBC filed motions to dismiss in several of these lawsuits, which were, for the most part, denied. In December 2015, three new actions containing similar allegations were filed in state and federal court in New York against HSBC Bank USA as trustee of over 40 mortgage securitisation trusts, many of which are at issue in the previously filed trustee cases. The complaints in the new actions against HSBC Bank USA allege that the trusts have sustained losses in collateral value of approximately $285m.

Various HSBC companies have also been named as defendants in a number of actions in connection with residential mortgage-backed security ('RMBS') offerings, which generally allege that the offering documents for securities issued by mortgage securitisation trusts contained material misstatements and omissions, including statements regarding the underwriting standards governing the underlying mortgage loans.

HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance and Decision One Mortgage Company LLC (an indirect subsidiary of HSBC Finance) have been named as defendants in various mortgage loan repurchase actions brought by trustees of mortgage securitisation trusts. In the aggregate, these actions seek to have the HSBC defendants repurchase mortgage loans, or pay compensatory damages in lieu of repurchase, totalling at least $1bn.

In addition to actions brought by trustees of securitisation trusts, HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) Inc. and Decision One Mortgage Company LLC have been named as defendants in two separate actions filed by Residential Funding Company LLC ('RFC'), a mortgage loan purchase counterparty. These actions seek unspecified damages in relation to alleged losses suffered by RFC as a result of approximately 25,000 mortgage loans purchased from HSBC between 1986 and 2007. Discovery is in progress in both of these actions.

Since 2010, various HSBC entities have received subpoenas and requests for information from the DoJ and the Massachusetts state Attorney General seeking the production of documents and information regarding HSBC's involvement in specific private-label RMBS transactions as an issuer, sponsor, underwriter, depositor, trustee, custodian or servicer. In November 2014, HNAH, on behalf of itself and various subsidiaries including, but not limited to, HSBC Bank USA, HSI Asset Securitization Corp., HSI, HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), HSBC Finance and Decision One Mortgage Company LLC, received a subpoena from the US Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado, pursuant to the Financial Industry Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act ('FIRREA'), concerning the origination, financing, purchase, securitisation and servicing of subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages. Five non-HSBC banks have previously reported settlements with the DoJ of FIRREA and other mortgage-backed securities-related matters. HSBC is cooperating with the US authorities and is continuing to produce documents and information responsive to their requests.

HSBC expects the focus on mortgage securitisations to continue. As a result, HSBC companies may be subject to additional claims, litigation and governmental or regulatory scrutiny relating to its participation in the US mortgage securitisation market.

There are many factors that may affect the range of possible outcomes, and the resulting financial impact of these matters. Based upon the information currently available, it is possible that any liabilities that might arise as a result of these matters could be significant.

Anti-money laundering and sanctions-related matters

In October 2010, HSBC Bank USA entered into a consent cease-and-desist order with the OCC, and HNAH entered into a consent cease-and-desist order with the FRB (the 'Orders'). These Orders required improvements to establish an effective compliance risk management programme across HSBC's US businesses, including risk management related to the Bank Secrecy Act ('BSA') and AML compliance. Steps continue to be taken to address the requirements of the Orders.

In December 2012, HSBC Holdings, HNAH and HSBC Bank USA entered into agreements with US and UK government agencies regarding past inadequate compliance with the BSA, AML and sanctions laws. Among those agreements, HSBC Holdings and HSBC Bank USA entered into a five-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DoJ, the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, and the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of West Virginia (the 'US DPA'); and HSBC Holdings consented to a cease-and-desist order, and HSBC Holdings and HNAH consented to a civil money penalty order with the FRB. HSBC Holdings also entered into an agreement with the Office of Foreign Assets Control ('OFAC') regarding historical transactions involving parties subject to OFAC sanctions, as well as an undertaking with the UK FCA to comply with certain forward-looking AML and sanctions-related obligations. In addition, HSBC Bank USA entered into a civil money penalty order with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ('FinCEN') of the US Treasury Department and a separate civil money penalty order with the OCC.

Under these agreements, HSBC Holdings and HSBC Bank USA made payments totalling $1.9bn to US authorities. In July 2013, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the US DPA and retained authority to oversee implementation of that agreement. An independent compliance monitor (the 'Monitor') was appointed in 2013 under the agreements entered into with the DoJ and the FCA to produce annual assessments of the effectiveness of HSBC's AML and sanctions compliance programme. Additionally, the Monitor is serving as HSBC's independent consultant under the consent order of the FRB. In January 2016, the Monitor delivered his second annual follow-up review report as required by the US DPA. The Monitor's report is discussed on page 116.

Under the terms of the US DPA, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, the DoJ has sole discretion to determine whether HSBC has breached the US DPA. Potential consequences of breaching the US DPA could include the imposition of additional terms and conditions on HSBC, an extension of the agreement, including its monitorship, or the criminal prosecution of HSBC, which could, in turn, entail further financial penalties and collateral consequences.

HSBC Bank USA also entered into a separate consent order with the OCC, requiring it to correct the circumstances and conditions as noted in the OCC's then-most recent report of examination, and imposing certain restrictions on HSBC Bank USA directly or indirectly acquiring control of, or holding an interest in, any new financial subsidiary, or commencing a new activity in its existing financial subsidiary, unless it receives prior approval from the OCC. HSBC Bank USA also entered into a separate consent order with the OCC requiring it to adopt an enterprise-wide compliance programme.

These settlements with US and UK authorities have led to private litigation, and do not preclude further private litigation related to HSBC's compliance with applicable BSA, AML and sanctions laws or other regulatory or law enforcement actions for BSA, AML, sanctions or other matters not covered by the various agreements.

In May 2014, a shareholder derivative action was filed by a shareholder of HSBC Holdings purportedly on behalf of HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HNAH and HSBC USA Inc. (the 'Nominal Corporate Defendants') in New York state court against certain current and former directors and officers of those HSBC companies (the 'Individual Defendants'). The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Nominal Corporate Defendants and caused a waste of corporate assets by allegedly permitting and/or causing the conduct underlying the US DPA. In March 2015, the Nominal Corporate Defendants moved to dismiss the action, and the Individual Defendants who had been served also responded to the complaint. In November 2015, the New York state court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has appealed that decision.

In July 2014, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against HSBC Holdings and a former employee purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased HSBC common shares and American Depositary Shares between July 2006 and July 2012. The complaint, which seeks monetary damages of up to CA$20bn, alleges that the defendants made statutory and common law misrepresentations in documents released by HSBC Holdings and its wholly owned subsidiary, HSBC Bank Canada, relating to HSBC's compliance with BSA, AML, sanctions and other laws.

In November 2014, a complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives of US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in Iraq between April 2004 and November 2011. The complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank Middle East, as well as other non-HSBC banks and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act ('US ATA') by altering or falsifying payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks for transactions processed through the US. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in May 2015, and a decision on that motion is pending.

In November 2015, a complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of representatives of four US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in terrorist attacks on three hotels in Amman, Jordan in 2005. The complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HNAH, HSI, HSBC Finance, HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC Bank Middle East, as well as a non-HSBC bank. The plaintiffs allege that the HSBC defendants violated the US ATA by failing to enforce due diligence methods to prevent its financial services from being used to support the terrorist attacks.

In February 2016, a complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas by representatives of US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels. The complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC México SA, and Grupo Financiero HSBC. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the US ATA by providing financial services to individuals and entities associated with the Mexican drug cartels. Defendants have not yet been served with process.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of these lawsuits, including the timing or any possible impact on HSBC, which could be significant.

Tax-related investigations

HSBC continues to cooperate in ongoing investigations by the DoJ and the US Internal Revenue Service regarding whether certain HSBC companies and employees, including those associated with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA ('HSBC Swiss Private Bank') and an HSBC company in India, acted appropriately in relation to certain customers who had US tax reporting obligations. In connection with these investigations, HSBC Swiss Private Bank, with due regard for Swiss law, has produced records and other documents to the DoJ. In August 2013, the DoJ informed HSBC Swiss Private Bank that it was not eligible for the 'Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks' since a formal investigation had previously been authorised.

In addition, various tax administration, regulatory and law enforcement authorities around the world, including in Belgium, France, Argentina and India, are conducting investigations and reviews of HSBC Swiss Private Bank and other HSBC entities in connection with allegations of tax evasion or tax fraud, money laundering and unlawful cross-border banking solicitation. HSBC Swiss Private Bank has been placed under formal criminal examination by magistrates in both Belgium and France. In February 2015, HSBC was informed that the French magistrates are of the view that they have completed their investigation with respect to HSBC Swiss Private Bank and have referred the matter to the public prosecutor for a recommendation on any potential charges to be brought, whilst reserving the right to continue investigating other conduct at HSBC. In April 2015, HSBC Holdings was informed that it has been placed under formal criminal investigation by the French magistrates in connection with the conduct of HSBC Swiss Private Bank in 2006 and 2007 for alleged tax offences, and a €1bn bail was imposed. HSBC Holdings appealed the magistrates' decision and, in June 2015, bail was reduced to €100m. The ultimate financial impact of this matter could differ significantly, however, from the bail amount of €100m.

In Argentina, in November 2014, the Argentine tax authority filed a complaint against various individuals, including current and former HSBC employees, alleging tax evasion and an unlawful association amongst HSBC Swiss Private Bank, HSBC Bank Argentina, HSBC Bank USA and certain HSBC employees, which allegedly enabled numerous HSBC customers to evade their Argentine tax obligations. In addition, the Argentine Congress convened a special committee to investigate similar allegations, as well as issues related to allegations of Argentine income tax evasion more broadly. The committee issued its final report in December 2015.

In India, in February 2015, the Indian tax authority issued a summons and request for information to an HSBC company in India. In August 2015 and November 2015, HSBC entities received notices issued by two offices of the Indian tax authority, alleging that the Indian tax authority had sufficient evidence to initiate prosecution against HSBC Swiss Private Bank and its Dubai entity for abetting tax evasion of four different Indian individuals and/or families and requesting that the HSBC entities show why such prosecution should not be initiated.

With respect to each of these ongoing matters, HSBC is cooperating with the relevant authorities in a manner consistent with relevant laws. There are many factors that may affect the range of outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of these investigations and reviews, which could be significant.

In light of the media attention regarding these matters, it is possible that other tax administration, regulatory or law enforcement authorities will also initiate or enlarge similar investigations or regulatory proceedings.

London interbank offered rates, European interbank offered rates and other benchmark interest rate investigations and litigation

Various regulators and competition and law enforcement authorities around the world, including in the UK, the US, the EU, Switzerland, South Korea and elsewhere, are conducting investigations and reviews related to certain past submissions made by panel banks and the processes for making submissions in connection with the setting of Libor, Euribor and other benchmark interest rates. As certain HSBC companies are members of such panels, HSBC has been the subject of regulatory demands for information and is cooperating with those investigations and reviews.

In May 2014, HSBC received a Statement of Objections from the European Commission (the 'Commission'), alleging anti-competitive practices in connection with the pricing of euro interest rate derivatives. The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary views and does not prejudge the final outcome of its investigation. HSBC responded to the Commission's Statement of Objections in March 2015, and a hearing before the Commission took place in June 2015. A decision by the Commission is pending.

In addition, HSBC and other US dollar Libor panel banks have been named as defendants in a number of private lawsuits filed in the US with respect to the setting of US dollar Libor. The complaints assert claims under various US laws, including US antitrust and racketeering laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. The lawsuits include individual and putative class actions, most of which have been transferred and/or consolidated for pre-trial purposes before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'New York District Court').

In March 2013, the New York District Court overseeing the consolidated proceedings related to US dollar Libor issued a decision in the six oldest actions, dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and state antitrust claims, racketeering claims, and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of their CEA claims that were not barred by the applicable statute of limitations to proceed. Some of those plaintiffs appealed the New York District Court's decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which later dismissed those appeals as premature. In January 2015, the US Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration on the merits of the plaintiffs' appeal. Oral argument in the Court of Appeals was held in November 2015, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

Other plaintiffs sought to file amended complaints in the New York District Court to assert additional allegations. In June 2014, the New York District Court issued a decision that, amongst other things, denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their complaints to assert additional theories of Libor manipulation against HSBC and certain non-HSBC banks, but granted leave to assert such manipulation claims against two other banks; and granted defendants' motion to dismiss certain additional claims under the CEA as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Proceedings with respect to all other actions in the consolidated proceedings were stayed pending this decision. The stay was lifted in September 2014, and amended complaints were filed in certain other individual and class actions thereafter. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, and in August 2015 and November 2015, the court issued decisions granting the motions in part, although it has not yet entered an order specifying which particular claims are dismissed against which defendants.

Separately, HSBC and other panel banks have also been named as defendants in two putative class actions filed in the New York District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in financial instruments allegedly related to the euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate ('Tibor') and/or Japanese yen Libor. The complaints allege, amongst other things, misconduct related to euroyen Tibor, although HSBC is not a member of the Japanese Bankers Association's euroyen Tibor panel, as well as Japanese yen Libor, in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA, and state law.

The first of the two actions was filed in April 2012, and HSBC responded by filing a motion to dismiss. In March 2014, the New York District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under US antitrust law and state law, but sustained their claims under the CEA. In June 2014, the plaintiffs then moved for leave to file an amended complaint adding new claims and parties. That motion was denied in March 2015, except insofar as it granted leave to add certain defendants not affiliated with HSBC and reserving on the question of whether the California State Teachers Retirement System ('CALSTRS') may intervene and be added as a plaintiff. In October 2015, the New York District Court denied the motion of CALSTRS to intervene. In November 2015, CALSTRS filed an appeal of that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which remains pending.

The second action was filed in July 2015. In February 2016, HSBC and the other banks named in the complaint filed a motion to dismiss the action, and a decision on that motion is pending.

In November 2013, HSBC and other panel banks were also named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the New York District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in euro futures contracts and other financial instruments allegedly related to Euribor. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to Euribor in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA and state law. The court previously stayed proceedings until May 2015. After the stay expired, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In October 2015, HSBC filed a motion to dismiss the action, which remains pending.

In September and October 2014, HSBC Bank plc and other panel banks were named as defendants in a number of putative class actions that were filed and consolidated in the New York District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in interest rate derivatives or purchased or sold financial instruments that were either tied to US dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association fix ('ISDAfix') rates or were executed shortly before, during, or after the time of the daily ISDAfix setting window. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to these activities in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA and state law. In February 2015, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint replacing HSBC Bank plc with HSBC Bank USA. A motion to dismiss that complaint was filed in April 2015, and a decision is pending.

There are many factors that may affect the range of possible outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of these lawsuits. Based upon the information currently available, it is possible that any liabilities that might arise as a result of the claims in these actions could be significant.

Foreign exchange rate investigations and litigation

Various regulators and competition and law enforcement authorities around the world, including in the US, the EU, Brazil, South Korea and elsewhere, are conducting investigations and reviews into trading by HSBC and others on the foreign exchange markets. HSBC has been cooperating with these ongoing investigations and reviews.

In May 2015, the DoJ resolved its investigations with respect to five non-HSBC financial institutions, four of whom agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges of conspiring to manipulate prices in the foreign exchange spot market, and resulting in the imposition of criminal fines in the aggregate of more than $2.5bn. Additional penalties were imposed at the same time by the FRB and other banking regulators. HSBC was not a party to these resolutions, and investigations into HSBC by the DoJ, FRB and others around the world continue.

In addition, in late 2013 and early 2014, HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc, HNAH and HSBC Bank USA were named as defendants, amongst other banks, in various putative class actions filed in the New York District Court. In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging, amongst other things, that defendants conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates (the 'Consolidated Action'). Separate putative class actions were also brought on behalf of non-US plaintiffs (the 'Foreign Actions'). Defendants moved to dismiss all actions. In January 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action, but granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Foreign Actions. Five additional putative class actions were subsequently filed in the New York District Court making similar allegations on behalf of persons who engaged in foreign exchange futures transactions on a US exchange, and those additional actions were subsequently consolidated with the Consolidated Action. In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a further amended complaint that, amongst other things, added new claims and parties, including HSBC Securities (USA), Inc. In September 2015, HSBC reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the Consolidated Action, subject to court approval. In December 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and HSBC made payment of the agreed settlement amount into an escrow account. The court has not yet set a date for the final approval hearing.

In addition to the above actions, a putative class action was filed in the New York District Court in June 2015 making similar allegations on behalf of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ('ERISA') plan participants, and another complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2015. HSBC filed a motion to transfer the California action to New York, which was granted in November 2015.

In September 2015, two additional putative class actions making similar allegations under Canadian law were issued in Canada against various HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank Canada, and numerous other financial institutions.

As at 31 December 2015, HSBC has recognised a provision in the amount of $1.2bn. There are many factors that may affect the range of outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of these matters. Due to uncertainties and limitations of these estimates, the ultimate penalties could differ significantly from the amount provided.

Precious metals fix-related litigation and investigations

Beginning in March 2014, numerous putative class actions were filed in the US District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California, naming HSBC and other members of The London Gold Market Fixing Limited as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2004 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the afternoon London gold fix for their collective benefit in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA and New York state law. The actions were subsequently consolidated in the New York District Court. An amended complaint was filed in March 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss. A hearing has been scheduled for March 2016.

Beginning in July 2014, numerous putative class actions were filed in the US District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, naming HSBC and other members of The London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 1999 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA and New York state law. The actions were subsequently consolidated in the New York District Court. An amended complaint was filed in April 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss. A hearing has been scheduled for March 2016.  

Between late 2014 and early 2015, numerous putative class actions were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming HSBC, and other members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing Company Limited as defendants. The complaints allege that, from January 2008 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of platinum group metals ('PGM') and PGM-based financial products for their collective benefit in violation of US antitrust laws and the CEA. An amended complaint was filed in August 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss.

Additionally, in December 2015, a putative class action under Canadian law was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against various HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank Canada, and other financial institutions. Plaintiffs allege that, from January 2004 to March 2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold-related investment instruments in violation of the Canadian Competition Act and common law.

Various regulators and competition and law enforcement authorities, including in the US and the EU, are conducting investigations and reviews relating to HSBC's precious metals operations. HSBC has been cooperating with these ongoing investigations. In November 2014, the Antitrust Division and Criminal Fraud Section of the DoJ issued a document request to HSBC Holdings, seeking the voluntary production of certain documents in connection with a criminal investigation that the DoJ is conducting of alleged anti-competitive and manipulative conduct in precious metals trading. In January 2016, the Antitrust Division of the DoJ informed HSBC that it was closing its investigation; however, the Criminal Fraud Section's investigation remains ongoing.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of these matters, including the timing or any possible impact on HSBC, which could be significant.

Credit default swap regulatory investigation and litigation

In July 2013, HSBC received a Statement of Objections from the Commission relating to its ongoing investigation of alleged anti-competitive activity by a number of banks and other market participants in the credit derivatives market between 2006 and 2009. The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's preliminary views and does not prejudge the final outcome of its investigation. HSBC submitted a response and attended a hearing in May 2014. Following the hearing, the Commission decided in December 2015 to close the case against all 13 banks, including all of the HSBC entities; however, the Commission's investigation relating to Markit and ISDA is ongoing.

In addition, HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Bank USA were named as defendants, amongst others, in numerous putative class actions filed in the New York District Court and the Illinois District Court. These class actions allege that the defendants, which include ISDA, Markit and several other financial institutions, conspired to restrain trade in violation of US antitrust laws by, amongst other things, restricting access to credit default swap pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange market. The plaintiffs in these suits purport to represent a class of all persons who purchased credit default swaps from or sold credit default swaps to defendants primarily in the US.

In October 2013, these cases were consolidated in the New York District Court (the 'Consolidated Action'). In September 2015, the HSBC defendants reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the Consolidated Action, subject to court approval. In October 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for April 2016.

Economic plans: HSBC Bank Brasil S.A.

In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, certain economic plans were introduced by the government of Brazil to reduce escalating inflation. The implementation of these plans adversely impacted savings account holders, thousands of which consequently commenced legal proceedings against financial institutions in Brazil, including HSBC Bank Brasil S.A. ('HSBC Brazil'), alleging, amongst other things, that savings account balances were adjusted by a different price index than that contractually agreed, which caused them a loss of income. Certain of these cases have reached the Brazilian Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has suspended all cases pending before lower courts until it delivers a final judgement on the constitutionality of the changes resulting from the economic plans. It is anticipated that the outcome of the Supreme Court's final judgement will set a precedent for all cases pending before the lower courts. Separately, the Brazilian Superior Civil Court is considering matters relating to, amongst other things, contractual and punitive interest rates to be applied to calculate any loss of income.

There is a high degree of uncertainty as to the terms on which the proceedings in the Supreme Court and Superior Civil Court will be resolved and the timing of such resolutions, including the amount of losses that HSBC Brazil may be liable to pay in the event of an unfavourable judgement. Such losses may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant amount to an amount up to $564m (based on the exchange rate between the USD and the BRL as at 31 December 2015), although the upper end of this range is considered unlikely.

Regulatory review of consumer 'enhancement services products'

HSBC Finance, through its legacy Cards and Retail Services business, offered or participated in the marketing, distribution, or servicing of products, such as identity theft protection and credit monitoring products, that were ancillary to the provision of credit to the consumer. HSBC Finance ceased offering these products by May 2012. The offering and administration of these and other enhancement services products, such as debt protection products, has been the subject of enforcement actions against other institutions by regulators, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the OCC, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Such enforcement actions have resulted in orders to pay restitution to customers and the assessment of penalties in substantial amounts. We have made restitution to certain customers in connection with certain enhancement services products, and we continue to cooperate with our regulators in connection with their ongoing review. In light of the actions that regulators have taken in relation to other non-HSBC credit card issuers regarding their enhancement services products, one or more regulators may order us to pay additional restitution to customers and/or impose civil money penalties or other relief arising from the prior offering and administration of such enhancement services products by HSBC Finance; however, management no longer expects the resulting financial impact to be material.

Fédération Internationale de Football Association ('FIFA') related investigations

HSBC has received inquiries from the DoJ regarding its banking relationships with certain individuals and entities that are or may be associated with FIFA. The DoJ is investigating whether multiple financial institutions, including HSBC, permitted the processing of suspicious or otherwise improper transactions, or failed to observe applicable AML laws and regulations. HSBC is cooperating with the DoJ's investigation.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of this matter, including the timing or any possible impact on HSBC, which could be significant.

Hiring practices investigation

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') is investigating multiple financial institutions, including HSBC, in relation to hiring practices of candidates referred by or related to government officials or employees of state-owned enterprises in Asia-Pacific. HSBC has received various requests for information and is cooperating with the SEC's investigation.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not practicable at this time for HSBC to predict the resolution of this matter, including the timing or any possible impact on HSBC, which could be significant.

41  Related party transactions

Related parties of the Group and HSBC Holdings include subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures, post-employment benefit plans for HSBC employees, Key Management Personnel, close family members of Key Management Personnel and entities which are controlled or jointly controlled by Key Management Personnel or their close family members.

Particulars of transactions with related parties, disclosed pursuant to the requirements of IAS 24 'Related Party Disclosures', are tabulated below. The disclosure of the year-end balance and the highest amounts outstanding during the year is considered to be the most meaningful information to represent the amount of the transactions and the amount of outstanding balances during the year.

Key Management Personnel are defined as those persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of HSBC Holdings, being the Directors and Group Managing Directors of HSBC Holdings.

Key Management Personnel

Compensation of Key Management Personnel

		2015		2014		2013
		$m		$m		$m
Short-term employee benefits		40		41		38
Post-employment benefits		1		1		2
Other long-term employee benefits		9		7		10
Share-based payments		51		54		35
Year ended 31 December		101		103		85

Transactions, arrangements and agreements involving related parties

Particulars of advances (loans and quasi-loans), credits and guarantees entered into by subsidiaries of HSBC Holdings during 2015 with Directors, disclosed pursuant to section 413 of the Companies Act 2006, are shown below:

		2015		2014
		$m		$m
Advances and credits at 31 December		4		5

Transactions and balances during the year with Key Management Personnel

		2015				2014
		Balance at         31 December		Highest amounts             outstanding             during year		Balance    at 31 December		Highest amounts             outstanding              during year
		$m		$m		$m		$m
Key Management Personnel1
Advances and credits2		218		411		309		347
Guarantees3		67		91		78		79

1  Includes Key Management Personnel, close family members of Key Management Personnel and entities which are controlled or jointly controlled by Key Management Personnel or their close family members.

2  The 2014 year-end balance has been restated from $194m to $309m and the 2014 highest amount outstanding during the year has been restated from $227m to $347m.

3  The 2014 year-end balance has been restated from nil to $78m and the 2014 highest amount outstanding during the year has been restated from nil to $79m.

Some of the transactions were connected transactions as defined by the Rules Governing The Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, but were exempt from any disclosure requirements under the provisions of those rules. The above transactions were made in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and security, as for comparable transactions with persons of a similar standing or, where applicable, with other employees. The transactions did not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavourable features.

Shareholdings, options and other securities of Key Management Personnel

		2015                        (000s)		2014                        (000s)
Number of options held over HSBC Holdings ordinary shares under employee share plans		29		28
Number of HSBC Holdings ordinary shares held beneficially and non-beneficially		18,961		17,533
Number of HSBC Bank 2.875% Notes 2015 due 30 April 2015 held beneficially and non-beneficially		-		5
At 31 December		18,990		17,566

Associates and joint ventures

The Group provides certain banking and financial services to associates and joint ventures including loans, overdrafts, interest and non-interest bearing deposits and current accounts. Details of the interests in associates and joint ventures are given in Note 19.

Transactions and balances during the year with associates and joint ventures

		2015				2014
		Highest balance during the year		Balance at       31 December		Highest balance       during the year		Balance at       31 December
		$m		$m		$m		$m
Amounts due from joint ventures:
- unsubordinated		195		151		205		205
Amounts due from associates:
- subordinated		-		-		58		-
- unsubordinated		4,209		2,035		5,451		4,273
		4,404		2,186		5,714		4,478
Amounts due to associates		1,047		92		650		162
Guarantees		905		904		952		952
Commitments		-		-		17		-

The above outstanding balances arose in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and security, as for comparable transactions with third-party counterparties.

Post-employment benefit plans

At 31 December 2015, $4.3bn (2014: $4.5bn) of HSBC post-employment benefit plan assets were under management by HSBC companies, earning management fees of $8m in 2015 (2014: $12m). At 31 December 2015 HSBC's post-employment benefit plans had placed deposits of $811m (2014: $223m) with its banking subsidiaries, earning interest payable to the schemes of nil (2014: $6m). The above outstanding balances arose from the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and security, as for comparable transactions with third-party counterparties.

HSBC Bank (UK) Pension Scheme enters into swap transactions with HSBC to help manage inflation and interest rate sensitivity of its liabilities. At 31 December 2015 the gross notional value of these swaps was $13.3bn (2014: $24bn), the swaps had a positive fair value to the scheme of $0.5bn (2014: $0.9bn positive); and HSBC had delivered collateral of $1.1bn (2014: $2.0bn) to the scheme in respect of these arrangements. This earned HSBC interest of nil (2014: $5m). All swaps were executed at prevailing market rates and within standard market bid/offer spreads. Over the year, the scheme reduced its level of swap transactions with HSBC.

The International Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme enters into swap transactions with HSBC to manage the inflation and interest rate sensitivity of its liabilities and selected assets. At 31 December 2015, the gross notional value of the swaps was $1.7bn (2014: $1.9bn) and the swaps had a net negative fair value to the scheme of $96m (2014: $107m negative). All swaps were executed at prevailing market rates and within standard market bid/offer spreads.

HSBC Holdings

Details of HSBC Holdings' subsidiaries are shown in Note 43.

Transactions and balances during the year with subsidiaries

		2015				2014
		Highest balance     during the year		Balance at         31 December		Highest balance      during the year		Balance at          31 December
		$m		$m		$m		$m
Assets
Cash at bank		620		242		436		249
Derivatives		3,409		2,466		3,179		2,771
Loans and advances		47,229		44,350		55,026		43,910
Financial investments		4,427		4,285		4,073		4,073
Investments in subsidiaries		97,770		97,770		96,264		96,264
Total related party assets at 31 December		153,455		149,113		158,978		147,267
Liabilities
Amounts owed to HSBC undertakings		2,892		2,152		12,046		2,892
Derivatives		2,459		2,277		1,169		1,169
Subordinated liabilities:
- at amortised cost		1,670		891		1,743		1,670
- designated at fair value		982		855		3,186		981
Total related party liabilities at 31 December		8,003		6,175		18,144		6,712
Guarantees		68,333		68,333		53,180		52,023
Commitments		16		-		1,245		16

The above outstanding balances arose in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and security, as for comparable transactions with third-party counterparties.

Some employees of HSBC Holdings are members of the HSBC Bank (UK) Pension Scheme, which is sponsored by a separate Group company. HSBC Holdings incurs a charge for these employees equal to the contributions paid into the scheme on their behalf. Disclosure in relation to the scheme is made in Note 6.

42  Events after the balance sheet date

A fourth interim dividend for 2015 of $0.21 per ordinary share (a distribution of approximately $4,134m) was declared by the Directors after 31 December 2015.

These accounts were approved by the Board of Directors on 22 February 2016 and authorised for issue.

43  HSBC Holdings' subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates

In accordance with Section 409 of the Companies Act 2006 a list of HSBC Holdings plc's subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates, the country of incorporation and the effective percentage of equity owned at 31 December 2015 is disclosed below.

Subsidiaries	Country	Security	Direct (%)	Total (%)
0866101 B.C. Ltd	Canada	C$ Common shares		100
0866102 B.C. Ltd	Canada	C$ Common shares		100
ACN 087 652 113 Pty Limited	Australia	A$0.16667 Ordinary shares		100
Albouys Nominees Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Allblack Investments Limited	Jersey	£0.0037 Ordinary and £0.0037 Preference shares		100
AMP Client HSBC Custody Nominee (UK) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (A) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (E) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (F) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (H) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (M) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (P) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (R) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance December (W) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance June (A) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance June (D) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance June (E) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance March (B) Limited	Northern Ireland	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance March (D) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance March (F) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance September (F) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
Assetfinance September (G) Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100
B&Q Financial Services Limited	England and Wales	£1.00 Ordinary shares		100

 

END

 

 

ACSUWRNRNNAOAAR