Item 1. Business.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Item 2. Properties.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Not Applicable.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not Applicable.
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).
None of the pool assets held by the Chase Issuance Trust include any significant obligors.
Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB: Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).
Not Applicable.
Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB: Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).
Not Applicable.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB: Legal Proceedings.
Litigation Regarding Chase Bank USA, National Association
A number of lawsuits seeking class action certification have been filed in both state and federal courts against Chase Bank USA, National Association (“Chase USA”). These lawsuits challenge certain policies and practices of Chase USA’s credit card business. A few of these lawsuits have been conditionally certified as class actions. Chase USA has defended itself against claims in the past and intends to continue to do so in the future. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of any of these lawsuits, Chase USA believes that any liability that might result from any of these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the credit card receivables.
In July 2015, Chase USA and Chase BankCard Services, Inc. entered into a consent order with the CFPB regarding practices involving credit card collections litigation, including with respect to sworn documents, and the sale of consumer credit card debt. Chase USA and Chase BankCard Services, Inc. are currently in the process of implementing the CFPB consent order. Chase USA does not expect that the CFPB consent order will adversely affect the payment of principal or interest by the issuing entity on the offered notes.
Industry Litigation
On June 22, 2005, merchants filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged that VISA, MasterCard and certain member banks including Bank of America, Chase USA, Capital One, Citibank and others, conspired to set the price of interchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint further alleged tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints were filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging the setting of interchange, as well as the associations’ respective rules. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases in the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on April 24, 2006 which added claims relating to off-line debit transactions. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims that pre-date January 1, 2004. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted that motion and those claims were dismissed.
Plaintiffs filed a first supplemental complaint in May 2006 alleging that the MasterCard offering violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both of those claims. On November 25, 2008, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the supplemental complaint with leave to replead.
In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification which defendants opposed. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York did not rule on the class certification motion.
In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an amended supplemental complaint challenging the MasterCard initial public offering (“IPO”) making antitrust claims similar to those that were dismissed previously. With respect to the Visa IPO, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading.
On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Separate motions to dismiss each of the supplemental complaints challenging the MasterCard and Visa IPOs were also filed. Plaintiffs and defendants also fully briefed and argued their motions for summary judgment. None of these motions have been decided.
In October 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association, MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated and various United States financial institution defendants, including Chase USA and several of its affiliates and certain predecessor institutions, entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve the United States merchant and retail industry association plaintiffs’ (the “Class Plaintiffs”) claims in the multi-district litigation. On November 27, 2012, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, which provided, among other things, for a $6.05 billion cash payment to the Class Plaintiffs, an amount equal to ten basis points of interchange for a period of eight months to be measured from a date within sixty days of the end of the opt-out period. The Settlement Agreement also provided for modifications to each of the network’s no-surcharge rules, which were effective as of January 27, 2013.
On April 11, 2013, Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement. On September 12, 2013, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York held the final approval hearing. On January 14, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York rendered its final order and judgment approving the settlement. A number of entities including retailers and objecting trade association appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s certification of the class action and reversed the approval of the class settlement. In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking review of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case has been remanded to the District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York has since appointed separate counsel for Class Plaintiffs seeking damages and injunctive relief. These Class Plaintiffs, as well as other merchants, recently filed motions seeking to amend their complaints which motions the defendants opposed.
Litigation Regarding Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts.
On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the “Federal Court Complaint”). In December 2014, the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court. In September 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV (“Royal Park”), one of the plaintiffs in the District Court cases against Wells Fargo Bank, filed a putative class action complaint relating to two trusts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages based on Wells Fargo Bank’s indemnification from trust funds for legal fees and expenses Wells Fargo Bank incurs or has incurred in defending the District Court case filed by Royal Park.
With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.
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
None
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 Accounting 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 Chase USA, as the servicer for each of the Chase Issuance Trust, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as the indenture trustee for the Chase Issuance Trust (each, a “Servicing Participant”) was a party participating in the servicing function during the reporting period with respect to the pool assets held by the respective 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”) during the respective trust’s fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, 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.
The Servicer has determined that there have not been any material instances of noncompliance reported in any assessment that involved the servicing of any of the assets backing the asset-backed securities for which this report on Form 10-K is being filed.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB: Servicer Compliance Statement.
Chase USA is the servicer and has provided a statement of compliance (a “Compliance Statement”) for the period from and including January 1, 2017 through and including December 31, 2017 for the Chase Issuance Trust. The Compliance Statement has been signed by an authorized officer of the servicer for the issuing entity and is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.
PART IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
(a)(1) Not Applicable.
(a)(2) Not Applicable.
(a)(3) See Item 15(b) below.
(b) Exhibits Required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K
Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.
Not applicable.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED WITH REPORTS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE ACT BY REGISTRANTS WHICH HAVE NOT REGISTERED SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE ACT.
No annual report to security holders or proxy statement, form of proxy or other proxy soliciting material has been sent to security holders or is anticipated to be furnished to security holders subsequent to the filing of this annual report on Form 10-K.
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.