Item 1. Business.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Not Applicable.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Substitute Information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB: Significant obligors of pool assets (Financial information).
The pool assets held by the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the “Trust”) do not include any significant obligors.
Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB: Credit enhancement and other support, except for certain derivatives instruments (Financial information).
Based on the standards set forth in Item 1114(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.
Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB: Certain derivatives instruments (Financial information).
Based on the standards set forth in Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB: Legal proceedings.
American Express Company and its subsidiaries (“American Express”) are involved in a number of legal and arbitration proceedings, including class actions.
On October 4, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), along with Attorneys General from Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Texas, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against American Express, MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ policies prohibiting merchants from steering a customer to use another network’s card, another type of card or another method of payment (“anti-steering” and “non-discrimination” rules and contractual provisions) violate the antitrust laws. The complaint alleges that the defendants participate in two distinct markets, a “General Purpose Card network services market,” and a “General Purpose Card network services market for merchants in travel and entertainment (“T&E”) businesses.” The complaint contends that each of the defendants has market power in the alleged two markets. The complaint seeks a judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing their anti-steering and non-discrimination rules and contractual provisions. The complaint does not seek monetary damages. Concurrent with the filing of the complaint, Visa and MasterCard announced they had reached an agreement settling the allegations in the complaint against them by agreeing to modifications in their rules prohibiting merchants that accept their cards from steering customers to use another network’s card, another type of card or another method of payment. In December 2010, the complaint filed by the DOJ and certain states’ attorneys general was amended to add as plaintiffs the Attorneys General from Arizona, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its claim), Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont. American Express’ response to the amended complaint was filed in early January 2011.
The DOJ matter is being coordinated with individual and putative class actions pending in the Eastern District of New York against American Express brought by merchants alleging that American Express’ “anti-steering” provisions in its merchant acceptance agreements with the plaintiffs violate federal antitrust laws. As alleged by the plaintiffs, these provisions prevent merchants from offering consumers incentives to use alternative forms of payment when consumers wish to use an American Express-branded card. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. The putative class actions have been partially stayed in light of the continuing appeal in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation (described below).
Since July 2003, American Express has been named in a number of putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of American Express’ charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. These cases have all been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption: In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation. A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et al. The Marcus case is not consolidated. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. Since April 2004, the parties to the consolidated actions have been engaged in motion practice regarding American Express’ motion to dismiss the consolidated actions on the grounds that all of the plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration. On February 1, 2012, the Second Circuit again reversed the District Court’s decision ordering arbitration, and reaffirmed its prior ruling. On May 29, 2012, the Second Circuit denied American Express’ petition for rehearing en banc with dissents. The Second Circuit has stayed the mandate pending the outcome of American Express’ petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted on November 6, 2012. Oral argument was heard on February 27, 2013.
In October 2007, The Marcus Corporation filed a motion seeking certification of a class. In September 2008, American Express moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of The Marcus Corporation’s complaint, and The Marcus Corporation cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. In March 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, without prejudicing their right to remake such a motion upon resolution of the pending summary judgment motions. A case captioned Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al., which makes similar allegations as those in the actions described above, was filed and remains in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed December 2003). To date the Hayama action has been stayed.
In February 2009, an amended complaint was filed in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation. The amended complaint contains a single count alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws through an alleged unlawful tying of: (a) corporate, small business and/or personal charge card services; and (b) Blue, Costco and standard GNS credit card services. In addition, in February 2009, a new complaint making the same allegations as made in the amended complaint filed in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation was also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That new case is captioned Greenporter LLC and Bar Hama LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. Proceedings in the Greenporter action and on the amended complaint filed in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation have been held in abeyance pending the disposition of the motions for summary judgment in the Marcus case.
In September 2010, a putative class action, captioned Meeks v. American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in Fulton County Superior Court, Georgia, alleging that plaintiff received unilateral interest rate increases despite alleged promises that the rate would remain fixed. In October 2010, American Express removed the matter to federal court. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all American Express Cardmembers who received unilateral interest rate increases despite their accounts being in good standing. In April 2011, American Express filed a motion to compel arbitration. On January 20, 2012, the District Court entered an order administratively closing the action pending further developments in a case captioned Ross v. American Express Company pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that American Express conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardmember agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as “all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks.” American Express cardholders are not part of the class. The parties reached an agreement to settle the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency conversion rates. The settlement was approved in 2012. The claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardmember arbitration clauses were not included in the proposed settlement. Trial of those claims concluded in February 2013. The parties are awaiting decision.
In September 2001, Hoffman, et al. v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County. Plaintiffs in that case claim that American Express erroneously charged Cardmember accounts in connection with its airflight insurance programs because in certain circumstances customers must request refunds, as disclosed in materials for the voluntary program. In January 2006, the court certified a class of American Express charge Cardmembers asserting claims for breach of contract and conversion under New York law, with a subclass of California residents asserting violations of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500, and a subclass of New York residents asserting violation of New York General Business Law § 349. American Express was granted judgment on all counts following trial, and that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for California on December 17, 2012.
Plaintiffs’ petition to the California Supreme Court for further review was denied. In addition, a case making the same factual allegations (purportedly on behalf of a different class of Cardmembers) as those in the Hoffman case was pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled Law Enforcement Systems v. American Express et al. On October 5, 2012, American Express’ motion to dismiss was granted and judgment entered for defendants. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.
In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint seeks to certify a class of California American Express Cardmembers whose interest rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increased. American Express’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint was denied by the court. Briefing on American Express’ appeal of the denial of the motion to compel arbitration is currently stayed.
In October 2012, a putative class action captioned Clarke v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that American Express Company, TRS, Centurion, and FSB violated state consumer protection laws, state common law and federal statutory law in the marketing, selling and implementation of a credit card product known as “Account Protector.” The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages along with injunctive and declaratory relief. American Express filed a motion to compel arbitration on December 11, 2012.
PART II
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information.
Not Applicable.
PART III
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
Substitute Information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1119 of Regulation AB: Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.
Information required by Item 1119 of Regulation AB has been omitted from this report on Form 10-K in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB: Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.
Each of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (“TRS”), for itself and on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiaries, Amex Card Services Company (“ACSC”), American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB, TransCentra, Inc. (formerly known as Regulus Group LLC), for itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries (“TransCentra”) and The Bank of New York Mellon (each, a “Servicing Participant”) has been identified by the registrant as a party participating in the servicing function with respect to the pool assets held by the American Express Credit Account Master Trust. Each of the Servicing Participants has completed a report on an assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to such Servicing Participant (each, a “Report on Assessment”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2012, which Reports on Assessment are attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K. In addition, each of the Servicing Participants has provided an attestation report (each, an “Attestation Report”) by a registered independent public accounting firm regarding its related Report on Assessment. Each Attestation Report is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.
Vendors
A Servicing Participant may engage one or more vendors, who are not considered servicers for purposes of Regulation AB, to perform specific and limited, or scripted activities that address all or a portion of one or more servicing criteria applicable to such Servicing Participant. In general in these cases, the Servicing Participant has instituted policies and procedures to monitor whether such vendors’ activities comply in all material respects with such servicing criteria, and may elect to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to such vendors’ activities in such Servicing Participant’s Report on Assessment. Where the Servicing Participant has not instituted such policies and procedures, or where the Servicing Participant does not otherwise elect to take responsibility for assessing its vendors’ activities, the vendor is itself treated as a Servicing Participant and is required to provide its own Report on Assessment and related Attestation Report.
Exceptions
Except as disclosed below, no Report on Assessment or related Attestation Report has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria identified in such Report on Assessment as applicable to the related Servicing Participant. In addition, no Report on Assessment or related Attestation Report has identified any material deficiency in such Servicing Participant’s policies and procedures to monitor vendor compliance.
The Bank of New York Mellon: The Bank of New York Mellon’s Report on Assessment and related Attestation Report have identified material noncompliance with two servicing criteria applicable to The Bank of New York Mellon. With regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(i), The Bank of New York Mellon report states that during the reporting period, certain reports to investors contained information that was not calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements. With regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii), The Bank of New York Mellon report states that with respect to certain remittances during the reporting period, amounts due to investors were not allocated and remitted in accordance with the distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements. The Bank of New York Mellon further indicates in its report certain remediation with respect to such instances of noncompliance. The Bank of New York Mellon has confirmed to the Depositor and TRS that these errors did not involve the Trust or investors in the Trust. We have not independently verified the accuracy of The Bank of New York Mellon’s assertions, the adequacy of its remediation efforts or the accuracy of such confirmation.
Platform Level Reports
Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) require that each Servicing Participant complete a Report on Assessment at a “platform” level, meaning that the transactions covered by the Report on Assessment should include all asset backed securities transactions involving such Servicing Participant that are backed by the same asset type. During 2012, TRS’ proprietary facilities conducted paper payment remittance processing services and performed billing dispute services. TransCentra also performed paper payment remittance processing services at three locations in the United States. As a remittance processor, TransCentra is responsible for, among other services, transmitting payment information to TRS, which TRS in turn uses to update its account obligor records. In its Report on Assessment attached as Exhibit 33.2 to this Form 10-K, TransCentra defines its platform to include (i) remittance processing services it provides to customers who are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactions and (ii) who have requested confirmation of TransCentra’s compliance in connection with loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions. In addition, eFunds Corporation (“eFunds”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., also performs billing dispute services at its Gurgaon and Mumbai, India sites. Within guidelines prescribed by TRS, eFunds is responsible for all aspects of billing disputes, from front end capture of information to the resolution of disputes between cardmembers and merchants. The Bank of New York Mellon is Trustee of the Trust. In its Report on Assessment attached as Exhibit 33.3 to this Form 10-K, The Bank of New York Mellon defines its platform to include publicly
issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1, 2006), that are subject to Regulation AB for which The Bank of New York Mellon provides trustee, securities administration or paying agent services, as defined and to the extent applicable in the transaction agreements, other than residential mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities.
None of TRS or the Trust is an affiliate of TransCentra or The Bank of New York Mellon.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB: Servicer Compliance Statement.
Each of TRS, ACSC, American Express Centurion Bank, American Express Bank, FSB and TransCentra has been identified by the registrant as a servicer or subservicer with respect to the pool assets held by the Trust. Each of them has provided a Statement of Compliance for the period covered by this Form 10-K (a “Compliance Statement”), in each case signed by an authorized officer thereof. Each Compliance Statement is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.
PART IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
(a)
(1)
Not applicable.
(2)
Not applicable.
(3)
The exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed in the Exhibit Index.
(b)
The exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed in the Exhibit Index.
(c)
Not applicable.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
AMERICAN EXPRESS ISSUANCE TRUST
By:
AMERICAN EXPRESS RECEIVABLES
FINANCING CORPORATION V LLC,
Depositor
By:
/s/ Anderson Y. Lee
Name:
Anderson Y. Lee
Title:
Vice President and Treasurer
(senior officer in charge of securitization)
March 20, 2013
EXHIBIT INDEX
The following exhibits are filed as part of this Annual Report or, where indicated, were heretofore filed and are hereby incorporated by reference (* indicates exhibits electronically filed herewith).