The following supplements our discussion of certain matters previously reported in Part I, Item 3 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2012 Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1 (Legal Proceedings) of our 2013 first quarter Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for events occurring during second quarter 2013.

MEDICAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LITIGATION Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. served as indenture trustee for debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation, which was placed in receivership at the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in August 2009. Since September 2009, Wells Fargo has been named as a defendant in various class and mass actions brought by holders of Medical Capital Corporation's debt, alleging that Wells Fargo breached contractual and other legal obligations owed to them and seeking unspecified damages. On April 16, 2013, the parties reached a settlement, subject to Court approval, of all claims which provides for Wells Fargo to pay $105 million to the plaintiffs. The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on May 6, 2013.

MARYLAND MORTGAGE LENDING LITIGATION On December 26, 2007, a class action complaint captioned Denise Minter, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other laws by conducting mortgage lending business improperly through a general partnership, Prosperity Mortgage Company. The complaint asserts that Prosperity Mortgage Company was not a legitimate affiliated business and instead operated to conceal Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s role in the loans at issue. A plaintiff class of borrowers who received a mortgage loan from Prosperity Mortgage Company that was funded by Prosperity Mortgage Company's line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012, had been certified. Prior to trial, the Court narrowed the class action to borrowers who were referred to Prosperity Mortgage Company by Wells Fargo's partner and whose loans were transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the case went to trial. On June 6, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants, including Wells Fargo. The plaintiffs have requested a new trial on the named plaintiffs' individual claims, and have filed a notice of appeal.

       On July 8, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in Maryland. On March 13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was previously set for March 18, 2013. On June 20, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed.

ORDER OF POSTING LITIGATION A series of putative class actions have been filed against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank (including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these cases to arbitration under recent Supreme Court authority. On November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District Court denied the motion. Wells Fargo has appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit.

       On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On May 14, 2013, the District Court entered an order indicating it will reinstate the judgment of approximately $203 million against Wells Fargo and enjoined Wells Fargo from making or disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of posting of transactions. Wells Fargo has appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit. On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010.

OUTLOOK When establishing a liability for contingent litigation losses, the Company determines a range of potential losses for each matter that is both probable and estimable, and records the amount it considers to be the best estimate within the range. The high end of the range of reasonably possible potential litigation losses in excess of the Company's liability for probable and estimable losses was $1.1 billion as of June 30, 2013. For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established liability that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Wells Fargo believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against Wells Fargo and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on Wells Fargo's consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to Wells Fargo's results of operations for any particular period.