PNC Financial Services (PNC)

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (originally filed in December 2004). The complaint claims violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), arising out of the January 1, 1999 conversion of our Pension Plan from a traditional defined benefit formula into a “cash balance” formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and other related matters. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current and former employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all current and former employee participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become eligible for an early retirement subsidy under the former Plan at some time prior to the date of the amended complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking unquantified damages and equitable relief available under ERISA, including interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. In November 2005, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s ruling in an opinion dated January 30, 2007. In February 2007, the court of appeals denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. Plaintiffs may seek further judicial review of the dismissal of the complaint.

In March 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Data Treasury Corporation against PNC and PNC Bank, N.A., as well as more than 50 other financial institutions, vendors, and other companies, claiming that the defendants are infringing, and inducing or contributing to the infringement of, the plaintiff’s patents, which allegedly involve check imaging, storage and transfer. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest and trebling of both, attorneys’ fees and other expenses, and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. We are not in a position to assess the likely outcome of this matter, including our exposure, if any. We believe that we have defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously. In January 2007, the district court entered an order staying the claims asserted against PNC under two of the four patents allegedly infringed by PNC, pending reexamination of these patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The lawsuit will proceed with respect to the other two patents. Further, the stay may be lifted once the Patent and Trademark Office completes its reexamination.

As a result of the acquisition of Riggs, PNC is now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to provide indemnification to its directors, officers, and, in some cases, employees and agents against certain liabilities incurred as a result of their service on behalf of or at the request of Riggs. PNC is also now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to advance on behalf of covered individuals costs incurred in connection with certain claims or proceedings, subject to written undertakings to repay all amounts so advanced if it is ultimately determined that the individual is not entitled to

indemnification. Since the acquisition, we have advanced such costs on behalf of covered individuals from Riggs and expect to continue to do so in the future.

Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs or a putative class of plaintiffs, several separate actions were filed in state and federal court against Community Bank of Northern Virginia (“CBNV”) and other defendants challenging the validity of second mortgage loans the defendants made to the plaintiffs. CBNV became a subsidiary of PNC when we acquired Mercantile. All of the cases were either filed in, or removed to, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In June 2003, the parties to the various actions informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the various actions. In July 2003, the court conditionally certified a class for settlement purposes, preliminarily approved the class settlement, and directed the issuance of notice to the class. Thereafter, certain plaintiffs who had initially opted out of the proposed settlement and other objectors challenged the validity of the settlement in the district court. The district court denied their arguments and approved the settlement. These “opt out” plaintiffs and other objectors appealed the district court’s approval of the settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2005, the court of appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the settlement and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to consider and address certain specific issues when re-evaluating the settlement. In August 2006, the settling parties submitted a modified settlement agreement to the district court for its approval. In addition, several individuals have filed actions on behalf of themselves or a putative class of plaintiffs alleging claims involving CBNV’s second mortgage loans. These actions also were filed in, or transferred for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek unquantified monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other expenses, and a refund of all origination fees and fees paid for title services.

There are several pending proceedings or other matters arising out of the three 2001 PAGIC transactions. These proceedings and other matters, including pending settlements relating to certain of the lawsuits and other claims arising out of the PAGIC transactions, are described in our 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. In April 2007, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania approved the settlement by our former independent auditors for the years ended 2001 of the consolidated class action arising out of the PAGIC transactions. This defendant’s settlement will become effective on May 18, 2007 unless there is an appeal from the court’s approval. Upon effectiveness of this settlement, this defendant will dismiss its appeal of the court’s approval of our

settlement of the same class action. At that point, our settlement would become final.

In connection with industry-wide investigations of practices in the mutual fund industry including market timing, late day trading, employee trading in mutual funds and other matters, several of our subsidiaries have received requests for information and other inquiries from state and federal governmental and regulatory authorities. These subsidiaries are fully cooperating in all of these matters. In addition, as a result of the regulated nature of our business and that of a number of our subsidiaries, particularly in the banking and securities areas, we and our subsidiaries are the subject from time to time of investigations and other forms of regulatory inquiry, often as part of industry-wide regulatory reviews of specified activities. Our practice is to cooperate fully with these investigations and inquiries.

In addition to the proceedings or other matters described above, PNC and persons to whom we may have indemnification obligations, in the normal course of business, are subject to various other pending and threatened legal proceedings in which claims for monetary damages and other relief are asserted. We do not anticipate, at the present time, that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of such other legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we cannot now determine whether or not any claims asserted against us or others to whom we may have indemnification obligations, whether in the proceedings or other matters specifically described above or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future reporting period.

(originally filed in December 2004). The complaint claims violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), arising out of the January 1, 1999 conversion of our Pension Plan from a traditional defined benefit formula into a “cash balance” formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and other related matters. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current and former employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all current and former employee- participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become eligible for an early retirement subsidy under the former Plan at some time prior to the date of the amended complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking unquantified damages and equitable relief available under ERISA, including interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On November 21, 2005, the court granted our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We believe that we have substantial defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously.

On March 28, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Data Treasury Corporation against PNC and PNC Bank, N.A., as well as more than 50 other financial institutions, vendors, and other companies, claiming that the defendants are infringing, and inducing or contributing to the infringement of, the plaintiff’s patents, which allegedly involve check imaging, storage and transfer. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest and trebling of both, attorneys’ fees and other expenses, and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. We are not in a position to assess the likely outcome of this matter, including our exposure, if any. We believe that we have defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously.

On August 21, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L. P. (“RAKTL”) against PNC, PNC Bank, N.A., and other defendants. On September 7, 2006, this lawsuit was divided into separate actions, and amended complaints were then filed, one of which is against PNC and PNC Bank, N.A. This lawsuit is one of many related RAKTL patent infringement actions pending in various federal district courts against a large number of defendants. Each of the actions involves a single family of related patents that RAKTL refers to as the “interactive call processing patents.” The amended complaint alleges that PNC and PNC Bank, N.A. are infringing, and inducing or contributing to the infringement of, certain of the plaintiff’s patents. RAKTL seeks unspecified damages (including treble damages), interest, attorneys’ fees and other expenses, and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. We are not in a position to assess the likely outcome of this matter, including our exposure, if any. We believe that we have defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously.

In its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, Riggs National Corporation (“Riggs”) disclosed a number of pending lawsuits. All material lawsuits have been finally resolved except one where a settlement agreement has been reached, subject

to final documentation. The pending settlement is not material to PNC.

As a result of the acquisition of Riggs, PNC is now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to provide indemnification to its directors, officers, and, in some cases, employees and agents against certain liabilities incurred as a result of their service on behalf of or at the request of Riggs. PNC is also now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to advance on behalf of covered individuals costs incurred in connection with certain claims or proceedings, subject to written undertakings to repay all amounts so advanced if it is ultimately determined that the individual is not entitled to indemnification. Since the acquisition, we have advanced such costs on behalf of covered individuals from Riggs and expect to continue to do so in the future at least with respect to lawsuits and other legal matters identified in Riggs’ first quarter 2005 Form 10-Q.

In connection with industry-wide investigations of practices in the mutual fund industry including market timing, late day trading, employee trading in mutual funds and other matters, several of our subsidiaries have received requests for information and other inquiries from state and federal governmental and regulatory authorities. These subsidiaries are fully cooperating in all of these matters. In addition, as a result of the regulated nature of our business and that of a number of our subsidiaries, particularly in the banking and securities areas, we and our subsidiaries are the subject from time to time of investigations and other forms of regulatory inquiry, often as part of industry-wide regulatory reviews of specified activities. Our practice is to cooperate fully with these investigations and inquiries.

In addition to the proceedings or other matters described above, PNC and persons to whom we may have indemnification obligations, in the normal course of business, are subject to various other pending and threatened legal proceedings in which claims for monetary damages and other relief are asserted. We do not anticipate, at the present time, that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of such other legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we cannot now determine whether or not any claims asserted against us or others to whom we may have indemnification obligations, whether in the proceedings or other matters specifically described above or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future reporting period.

remaining matters might be or the portion of any such recoveries for which we would ultimately be responsible, but the final consequences to PNC could be material.

On April 29, 2005, an amended complaint was filed in the putative class action against PNC, PNC Bank, N.A., our Pension Plan and its Pension Committee in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (originally filed in December 2004). The complaint claims violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), arising out of the January 1, 1999 conversion of our Pension Plan from a traditional defined benefit formula into a “cash balance” formula, the design and continued operation of the Plan, and other related matters. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current and former employee-participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all current and former employee- participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan as of December 31, 1998 and thereafter who were or would have become eligible for an early retirement subsidy under the former Plan at some time prior to the date of the amended complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking unquantified damages and equitable relief available under ERISA, including interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On November 21, 2005, the court granted our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We believe that we have substantial defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously.

On March 28, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Data Treasury Corporation against PNC and PNC Bank, N.A., as well as more than 50 other financial institutions, vendors, and other companies, claiming that the defendants are infringing, and inducing or contributing to the infringement of, the plaintiff’s patents, which allegedly involve check imaging, storage and transfer. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages (including treble damages), interest, attorneys’ fees and other expenses, and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. We are not in a position to assess the likely outcome of this matter, including our exposure, if any. We believe that we have defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously.

In its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, Riggs National Corporation (“Riggs”) disclosed a number of pending lawsuits. All material lawsuits have been finally resolved or settlement agreements have been reached, in one case subject to final documentation. None of the pending settlements where the settlement has not been completed is material to PNC.

As a result of the acquisition of Riggs, PNC is now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to provide indemnification to its directors, officers, and, in some cases, employees and agents against certain liabilities incurred as a result of their service on behalf of or at the request of Riggs. PNC is also now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to advance on behalf of covered individuals costs incurred in connection with certain claims or proceedings, subject to written undertakings to repay all amounts so advanced if it is ultimately determined that the individual is not entitled to indemnification. Since the acquisition, we have advanced such costs on behalf of covered individuals from Riggs and expect to continue to do so in the future at least with respect to lawsuits and other legal matters identified in Riggs’ first quarter 2005 Form 10-Q.

In connection with industry-wide investigations of practices in the mutual fund industry including market timing, late day trading, employee trading in mutual funds and other matters, several of our subsidiaries have received requests for information and other inquiries from state and federal governmental and regulatory authorities. These subsidiaries are fully cooperating in all of these matters.

In addition to the proceedings or other matters described above, PNC and persons to whom we may have indemnification obligations, in the normal course of business, are subject to various other pending and threatened legal proceedings in which claims for monetary damages and other relief are asserted. We do not anticipate, at the present time, that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of such other legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we cannot now determine whether or not any claims asserted against us or others to whom we may have indemnification obligations, whether in the proceedings or other matters specifically described above or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future reporting period.

defenses to the claims against us in this lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously.

In its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, Riggs National Corporation (“Riggs”) disclosed a number of pending lawsuits. All material lawsuits have been finally resolved or settlement agreements have been reached, in some cases subject to final documentation or court approval. None of the pending settlement amounts where the settlement has not been completed is material to PNC. The pending settlement amount for each of these lawsuits was reserved upon the recording of our acquisition of Riggs.

As a result of the acquisition of Riggs, PNC is now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to provide indemnification to its directors, officers, and, in some cases, employees and agents against certain liabilities incurred as a result of their service on behalf of or at the request of Riggs. PNC is also now responsible for Riggs’ obligations to advance on behalf of covered individuals costs incurred in connection with certain claims or proceedings, subject to written undertakings to repay all amounts so advanced if it is ultimately determined that the individual is not entitled to indemnification. Since the acquisition, we have advanced such costs on behalf of covered individuals from Riggs and expect to continue to do so in the future at least with respect to lawsuits and other legal matters identified in Riggs’ first quarter 2005 Form 10-Q.

There are several pending judicial or administrative proceedings or other matters arising out of the three 2001 PAGIC transactions. Among the requirements of a June 2003 Deferred Prosecution Agreement that one of our subsidiaries entered into relating to the PAGIC transactions was the establishment of a Restitution Fund through our $90 million contribution. The Restitution Fund will be available to satisfy claims, including for the settlement of the pending securities litigation, which settlement remains subject to court approval. Louis W. Fryman, chairman of Fox Rothschild LLP in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is administering the Restitution Fund. In December 2004 and January and March 2005, we entered into settlement agreements relating to certain of the lawsuits and other claims arising out of the PAGIC transactions. These pending proceedings and settlements are described in our 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K under Item 3.

In connection with industry-wide investigations of practices in the mutual fund industry including market timing, late day trading, employee trading in mutual funds and other matters, several of our subsidiaries have received requests for information and other inquiries from state and federal governmental and regulatory authorities. These subsidiaries are fully cooperating in all of these matters.

In addition to the proceedings or other matters described above, PNC and persons to whom we may have indemnification obligations, in the normal course of business, are subject to various other pending and threatened legal proceedings in which claims for monetary damages and other relief are asserted. We do not anticipate, at the present time, that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of such other legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we cannot now determine whether or not any claims asserted against us or others to whom we may have indemnification obligations, whether in the proceedings or other matters specifically described above or otherwise, will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future reporting period.