The DOJ matter is being coordinated with individual and coordination of the DOJ and state attorneys general litigation with other casesputative class actions pending in the Eastern District of New York against American Express relating to the non-discriminationbrought 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 inIn 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. TheMarcus 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 captionedHayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al., which makes similar allegations as those in the actions described above, was filed and remains in general above.

In JuneFebruary 2009, an amended complaint was filed inIn 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 inIn re American Express Merchants’ Litigationwas also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That new case is captionedGreenporter 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 theGreenporteraction and on the amended complaint filed inIn re American Express Merchants’ Litigationhave been held in abeyance pending the disposition of the motions for summary judgment in theMarcuscase.

In September 2010, a putative class action, captionedMeeks 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 captionedRoss 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 theHoffmancase was pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitledLaw 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, captionedLopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed against Centurion in U.S.the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint seeks to certify a class of California American Express cardmembers with billing addresses in 16 different states “whose interest rates on their outstanding balances were retroactively increased” by Centurion. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages “in excess of $5,000,000” and unspecified injunctive relief. On December 7, 2009, the Court ordered that the matter be stayed pending decisions on relevant legal issues in other cases not involving American Express.

In October 2012, a putative class action captionedClarke 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 and plaintiff has indicated they will amend their complaint to limit the class to California residents only. The Company filed a revised motion to compel arbitration and a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Both motions were denied by the Court. Subsequently, in response to a request by the Company, the Court stayed the action pending the outcome of a case captionedAT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which is pending before the United States Supreme Court and may impact the question of whether the Company’s motion to compel arbitration should have been granted.

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:

Substitute Information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:

Item 1119of Regulation AB: Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.

Item 1122of Regulation AB: Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

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

Item 1123of Regulation AB: Servicer Compliance Statement.