NOTE 15—Commitments and Contingencies

COMMERCIAL COMMITMENTS

Regions issues off-balance sheet financial instruments in connection with lending activities. The credit risk associated with these instruments is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers and is subject to Regions' normal credit approval policies and procedures. Regions measures inherent risk associated with these instruments by recording a reserve for unfunded commitments based on an assessment of the likelihood that the guarantee will be funded and the creditworthiness of the customer or counterparty. Collateral is obtained based on management's assessment of the creditworthiness of the customer.

Credit risk associated with these instruments is represented by the contractual amounts indicated in the following table:

Unused commitments to extend credit—To accommodate the financial needs of its customers, Regions makes commitments under various terms to lend funds to consumers, businesses and other entities. These commitments include (among others) credit card and other revolving credit agreements, term loan commitments and short-term borrowing agreements. Many of these loan commitments have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since many of these commitments are expected to expire without being funded, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future liquidity requirements.

Standby letters of credit—Standby letters of credit are also issued to customers which commit Regions to make payments on behalf of customers if certain specified future events occur. Regions has recourse against the customer for any amount required to be paid to a third party under a standby letter of credit. Historically, a large percentage of standby letters of credit expired without being funded. The contractual amount of standby letters of credit represents the maximum potential amount of future payments Regions could be required to make and represents Regions’ maximum credit risk.

Commercial letters of credit—Commercial letters of credit are issued to facilitate foreign or domestic trade transactions for customers. As a general rule, drafts will be drawn when the goods underlying the transaction are in transit.

INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATION

As discussed in Note 2, on April 2, 2012 (“Closing Date”), Regions closed the sale of Morgan Keegan Company, Inc. and related affiliates to Raymond James Financial Inc. (“Raymond James”). In connection with the sale, Regions agreed to indemnify Raymond James for all legal matters related to pre-closing activities, including matters filed subsequent to the Closing Date that relate to actions that occurred prior to closing. Losses under the indemnification include legal and other expenses, such as costs for judgments, settlements and awards associated with the defense and resolution of the indemnified matters. The maximum potential amount of future payments that Regions could be required to make under the indemnification is indeterminable due to the indefinite term of some of the obligations. However, Regions expects the majority of ongoing legal matters to be resolved within approximately three years.

As of the Closing Date, the fair value of the indemnification obligation, which includes defense costs and unasserted claims, was approximately $385 million, of which approximately $256 million was recognized as a reduction to the gain on sale of Morgan Keegan. In accordance with the Stock Purchase Agreement, indemnified losses will be reimbursed once they exceed the dollar value of the reserves related to pending or threatened claims or contingent liabilities that were on the books of Morgan Keegan as of the Closing Date. The fair value was determined through the use of a present value calculation that takes into account the future cash flows that a market participant would expect to receive from holding the indemnification liability as an asset. Regions performed a probability-weighted cash flow analysis and discounted the result at a credit-adjusted risk free rate. The fair value of the indemnification liability includes amounts that Regions had previously determined meet the definition of probable and reasonably estimable. To date, Regions has not incurred any material costs as a result of the indemnification obligation and no amounts have been reimbursed to Raymond James. As of June 30, 2012, the carrying value of the indemnification obligation is approximately $383 million.

LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

Regions and its affiliates are subject to loss contingencies related to litigation and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. Regions evaluates these contingencies based on information currently available, including advice of counsel and assessment of available insurance coverage. Regions establishes accruals for litigation and claims when a loss contingency is considered probable and the related amount is reasonably estimable. Any accruals are periodically reviewed and may be adjusted as circumstances change. In addition, as previously discussed, Regions has agreed to indemnify Raymond James for all legal matters resulting from pre-closing activities in conjunction with the sale of Morgan Keegan and has recorded an indemnification obligation at fair value in the amount of $383 million as of June 30, 2012. When able to do so, Regions also estimates loss contingencies for possible litigation and claims, whether or not there is an accrued probable loss. Where Regions is able to estimate such possible losses, Regions estimates that it is reasonably possible it could incur losses, in excess of amounts accrued, in an aggregate amount up to approximately $200 million as of June 30, 2012, with it also being reasonably possible that Regions could incur no losses in excess of amounts accrued. The legal contingencies included in the reasonably possible estimate include those that are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

Assessments of litigation and claims exposures are difficult due to many factors that involve inherent unpredictability. Those factors include the following: the varying stages of the proceedings, particularly in the early stages; unspecified damages; damages other than compensatory such as punitive damages; multiple defendants and jurisdictions; whether discovery has begun or not; and whether the claim involves a class-action. There are numerous factors that result in a greater degree of complexity in class-action lawsuits as compared to other types of litigation. Due to the many intricacies involved in class-action lawsuits at the early stages of these matters, obtaining clarity on a reasonable estimate is difficult which may call into question its reliability. As a result of some of these factors, Regions may be unable to estimate reasonably possible losses with respect to some of the matters disclosed below. The aggregated estimated amount provided above therefore may not include an estimate for every matter disclosed below.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the “Funds”) and shareholders of Regions. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment Management, Inc. (“Regions Investment Management”). Regions Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. These cases are in various stages and no classes have been certified. Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases. Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James discussed above.

In July 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Morgan Keegan alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with auction rate securities (“ARS”) that Morgan Keegan underwrote, marketed and sold. The SEC sought an injunction against Morgan Keegan for violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, as well as disgorgement, financial penalties and other equitable relief for customers, including repurchase by Morgan Keegan of all ARS that it sold prior to March 20, 2008. Beginning in February 2009, Morgan Keegan commenced a voluntary program to repurchase ARS that it underwrote and sold to the firm’s customers, and extended that repurchase program on October 1, 2009 to include ARS that were sold by Morgan Keegan to its customers but were underwritten by other firms. On June 29, 2011, Morgan Keegan announced the final phase of the repurchase program to include ARS issued by Jefferson County, Alabama that were sold by Morgan Keegan to its customers. On June 28, 2011, the Court issued a summary judgment in favor of Morgan Keegan in this case. The SEC has appealed that judgment. On May 2, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit granted the SEC’s appeal and remanded the case to the District Court. Previously on July 21, 2009, the Alabama Securities Commission issued a “Show Cause” order to Morgan Keegan arising out of the ARS matter that is the subject of the SEC complaint described above. The order requires Morgan Keegan to show cause why its registration as a broker-dealer should not be suspended or revoked in the State of Alabama and also why it should not be subject to disgorgement, repurchasing all ARS sold to Alabama residents and payment of costs and penalties. These matters are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions’ stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of Regions. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including allegations that statements that were materially false and misleading were included in filings made with the SEC. The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions’ motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On June 14, 2012, the trial court granted class certification. Regions is seeking appellate review of the class certification. Discovery is ongoing.

Regions has received inquiries and subpoenas from government authorities primarily concerning accounting matters from 2009 and earlier periods that also have been the subject of the civil litigation mentioned above. Regions is cooperating in providing responses to these inquiries and subpoenas. In addition, the Board of Directors is conducting investigations regarding certain of the matters raised in these inquiries and subpoenas.

In December 2009, Regions and certain current and former directors and officers were named in a consolidated shareholder derivative action filed in Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaint alleges mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment relating to bonuses and other benefits received by executive management. Plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. A motion to dismiss all claims is pending.

In September 2009, Regions was named as a defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds and overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to posting order. The case was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May 2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied. Regions appealed the denial and on April 29, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the denial and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of Regions’ motion to compel arbitration. On September 1, 2011, the trial court again denied Regions’ motion to compel arbitration. Regions again appealed the denial to the Eleventh Circuit, which on March 5, 2012 granted the motion and ordered that the case be dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing by the full court of appeals, which was denied on April 30, 2012. Another purported class action alleging these claims was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in January 2012. The case is still early in its development and no class has been certified. Plaintiffs in these cases have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.

In July 2006, Morgan Keegan and a former Morgan Keegan analyst were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by a Canadian insurance and financial services company and its American subsidiary in the Circuit Court of Morris County, New Jersey. Plaintiffs made claims under a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute, for commercial disparagement, tortious interference with contractual relationships, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and common law conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a multi-year conspiracy to publish and disseminate false and defamatory information about plaintiffs to improperly drive down plaintiff stock price, so that others could profit from short positions. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ actions damaged their reputations and harmed their business relationships. Plaintiffs allege a number of categories of damages they sustained, including lost insurance business, lost financings and increased financing costs, increased audit fees and directors and officers insurance premiums and lost acquisitions, and have requested monetary damages. These claims were never considered to be meritorious, but some of the claims survived an extended motion practice and discovery process. On May 11, 2012, the trial court ruled that New York law applied to plaintiff’s RICO claims, therefore the claims are not subject to treble damages. On June 27, 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ tortious interference with prospective relations claim, but allowed other claims to go forward. Both the May 11 and June 27 orders are currently being re-heard. A jury trial is currently set to begin on September 10, 2012. These matters are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

While the final outcome of litigation and claims exposures is inherently unpredictable, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of pending and threatened litigation would not have a material effect on Regions’ business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a whole. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is reasonably possible that an adverse outcome in any of the matters discussed above could be material to Regions’ business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period of occurrence.