RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider each of the following risks and all of the other information contained in this prospectus before participating in the exchange offer. Some of these risks relate principally to our business and the industry in which we operate, while others relate principally to our spin-off from Morgan Stanley, and other risks relate principally to the exchange offer and the exchange notes.

Our business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity could be adversely affected by any of these risks, and, as a result, our ability to comply with our obligations with respect to the exchange notes could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Business

We face competition from other credit card issuers, and we may not be able to compete effectively, which could result in fewer customers and lower account balances and could materially adversely affect our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

The credit card issuing business is highly competitive, and we compete with other credit card issuers on the basis of a number of factors, including: merchant acceptance, products and services, incentives and reward programs, brand, network, reputation and pricing. This competition, among other things, affects our ability to obtain applicants for our credit cards, encourage cardmembers to use our credit cards, maximize the revenue generated by card usage and generate cardmember loyalty and satisfaction so as to minimize the number of cardmembers switching to other credit card brands. Competition is also increasingly based on the value provided to the cardholder by rewards programs. Many credit card issuers have instituted rewards programs that are similar to ours, and issuers may in the future institute rewards programs that are more attractive to cardmembers than our programs. In addition, because most domestically issued credit cards, other than those issued by American Express, are issued on the Visa and MasterCard networks, most other card issuers benefit from the dominant position and marketing and pricing power of Visa and MasterCard. If we are unable to compete successfully, or if competing successfully requires us to take aggressive actions in response to competitors’ actions, our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We incur considerable expenses in competing with other credit card issuers, and many of our competitors have greater scale, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage.

We incur considerable expenses in competing with other credit card issuers to attract and retain cardmembers and increase card usage. A substantial portion of these expenses relates to marketing expenditures; however, traditional customer acquisition methods have become increasingly challenging. Telemarketing has been hampered by the Federal Trade Commission’s National Do Not Call Registry, which had increased to over 145 million phone numbers as of October 2007. Direct mail response rates have fallen, with market researcher Synovate reporting that, in the industry, only three out of every 1,000 offers generated responses in 2005 compared to approximately 28 out of every 1,000 in 1992.

Because of the highly competitive nature of the credit card issuing business and increasing marketing challenges, a primary method of competition among credit card issuers, including us, is to offer low introductory interest rates and balance transfer programs that offer a favorable annual percentage rate or other financial incentives for a specified length of time on account balances transferred from another credit card. This type of competition has adversely affected credit card yields, and many cardholders now frequently switch credit cards or transfer their balances to another card. There can be no assurance that any of the expenses we incur or incentives we offer to attempt to acquire and maintain accounts and increase card usage will be effective.

Furthermore, many of our competitors are larger than we are, have greater financial resources than we do and/or have lower capital costs and operating costs than we have and expect to have, and have assets such as

8

Table of Contents

branch locations and co-brand relationships that may help them compete more effectively. In addition, there is an increasing trend toward consolidation among credit card issuers, resulting in even greater pooled resources. We may be at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the greater scale of many of our competitors.

We face competition from other operators of payment networks, and we may not be able to compete effectively, which could result in reduced transaction volume, limited merchant acceptance of our cards, limited issuance of cards on our network by third parties and materially reduced earnings.

We face substantial and increasingly intense competition in the payments industry. We compete with other payment networks to attract third-party issuers to issue credit and debit cards and other card products on the Discover and PULSE Networks. Competition with other operators of payment networks is generally based on issuer interchange fees, other economic terms, merchant acceptance and network functionality. Competition is also based on service quality, brand image, reputation and market share.

Many of our competitors are well established, larger than we are and/or have greater financial resources than we do. These competitors have provided financial incentives to card issuers, such as large cash signing bonuses for new programs, funding for and sponsorship of marketing programs and other bonuses. Visa and MasterCard have each been in existence for more than 40 years and enjoy greater merchant acceptance and broader global brand recognition than we do. In addition, Visa and MasterCard have entered into long-term arrangements with many financial institutions that may have the effect of preventing them from issuing credit cards on the Discover Network or issuing debit cards on the PULSE Network. MasterCard recently completed an initial public offering, which provided it with significant capital and may enhance its strategic flexibility. Visa also intends to undertake an initial public offering. American Express is also a strong competitor, with international acceptance, high transaction fees and an upscale brand image.

Furthermore, as a result of their dominant market position and considerable marketing and pricing power, in recent years Visa and MasterCard have been able to aggressively increase transaction fees charged to merchants in an effort to retain and grow their issuer volume. If we are unable to remain competitive on issuer interchange and other incentives, we may be unable to offer adequate pricing to third-party issuers while maintaining sufficient net revenues. At the same time, increasing the transaction fees charged to merchants in order to increase the interchange fees payable to credit card issuers could adversely affect our effort to increase merchant acceptance of credit cards issued on the Discover Network and may cause merchant acceptance to decrease. See “—Our transaction volume is concentrated among large merchants, and a reduction in the number of, or rates paid by, merchants that participate in the Discover Network could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.” This, in turn, could adversely affect our ability to attract third-party issuers and our ability to maintain or grow revenues from our proprietary network. Similarly, the PULSE Network operates in the highly competitive PIN debit business with well established and financially strong network competitors (particularly Visa) that have the ability to offer more attractive economics and bundled products to financial institutions.

In addition, if we are unable to maintain sufficient network functionality to be competitive with other networks, our ability to attract third-party issuers and maintain or increase the revenues generated by our proprietary card issuing business may be materially adversely affected. An inability to compete effectively with other payment networks for the reasons discussed above or any other reason could result in reduced transaction volume, limited merchant acceptance of our cards, limited issuance of cards on our network by third parties and materially reduced earnings.

Our business depends on our ability to manage our credit risks, and failing to manage these risks successfully may result in high charge-off rates or impede our growth.

We market our products to a wide range of consumers, and our success depends on our ability to continue to manage our credit risk while attracting new cardmembers with profitable usage patterns. We select our cardmembers, manage their accounts and establish terms and credit limits using proprietary scoring models and

9

Table of Contents

other analytical techniques designed to set terms and credit limits such that we are appropriately compensated for the credit risk we accept, while encouraging cardmembers to use their available credit. The models and approaches we use to select, manage and underwrite our cardmembers may not accurately predict future charge-offs due to, among other things, inaccurate assumptions or models. While we continually seek to improve our assumptions and models, we may make modifications that unintentionally cause them to be less predictive. We may also incorrectly interpret the data produced by these models in setting our credit policies. Our ability to manage credit risk may also be adversely affected by economic conditions, legal or regulatory changes (such as bankruptcy laws, minimum payment regulations and re-age guidance), competitors’ actions and consumer behavior, as well as inadequate collections staffing, techniques, models and vendor performance.

A cardmember’s ability to repay us can be negatively impacted by changes in their payment obligations under nontraditional or non-conforming mortgage loans, including subprime mortgage loans. Such changes can result from changes in economic conditions including increases in base lending rates upon which payment obligations are based, which in turn could adversely impact the ability of our cardmembers to meet their payment obligations to other lenders and to us and could result in higher credit losses in our portfolio.

Rising delinquencies and rising rates of bankruptcy are often precursors of future charge-offs. For instance, bankruptcy rates in the United Kingdom have increased significantly in recent years as a result of the relaxation of the bankruptcy laws, which has contributed to increases in charge-off rates in our U.K. operations. There can be no assurance that our lending standards will protect us against high charge-off levels. In addition, because an important source of our funding is the securitization market, an increase in delinquencies and/or charge-offs could increase our cost of funds or unintentionally cause an early amortization event. See “—We may be unable to securitize our receivables at acceptable rates or at all, which could materially adversely affect our liquidity, cost of funds, reserves and capital requirements.”

We plan to expand in several card and consumer lending sectors. Areas of particular focus include: a small business card, which we launched in 2006; relaunching the Miles by Discover Card product, which occurred in 2007; launching personal loan and student lending products, which occurred in 2007; and prepaid cards. We also continuously refine and test our credit criteria, which results in some instances in approving applications that did not previously meet our underwriting criteria. We have less experience in these areas as compared to our traditional products and segments, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our credit risk or generate sufficient revenue to cover our expenses in these markets. Our failure to manage our credit risks may materially adversely affect our profitability and ability to grow.

Economic downturns, financial market events and other conditions beyond our control could materially adversely affect our business.

Economic downturns, financial market events and other conditions beyond our control may adversely affect consumer spending, asset values, investments, financial market liquidity, consumer indebtedness and unemployment rates, which in turn can negatively impact our business. If general economic conditions in the United States or United Kingdom deteriorate or interest rates increase, the number of transactions, average purchase amount of transactions, or average balances outstanding on our cards may be reduced, which would reduce transaction fees and interest income and thereby adversely affect profitability. In addition, high levels of unemployment, low levels of spending, recessions or other conditions, including terrorism, natural disasters or the outbreak of diseases such as avian flu, may adversely affect the ability of cardmembers to pay amounts owed to us, which would increase delinquencies and charge-offs and could materially adversely affect our business.

Changes in the level of interest rates could materially adversely affect our earnings.

Changes in interest rates cause our interest expense to increase or decrease, as certain of our debt instruments carry interest rates that fluctuate with market benchmarks. If we are unable to pass our higher cost of funds to our customers, the increase in interest expense could materially adversely affect earnings. Some of our

10

Table of Contents

managed receivables bear interest at a fixed rate or do not earn interest, and we may not be able to increase the rate on those loans to mitigate our higher cost of funds. At the same time, our variable rate managed receivables, which are based on a market benchmark, may not change at the same rate as our floating rate debt instruments or may be subject to a cap.

Interest rates may also adversely impact our delinquency and charge-off rates. Many consumer lending products bear interest rates that fluctuate with certain base lending rates published in the market, such as the prime rate and LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate). As a result, higher interest rates often lead to higher payment requirements by consumers under obligations to us or other lenders, which may reduce their ability to remain current on their obligations to us and thereby lead to loan delinquencies and additions to our loan loss provision, which could materially adversely affect our earnings.

In connection with our recent spin-off from Morgan Stanley, we have incurred additional indebtedness that could restrict our operations.

In recent years, Morgan Stanley provided a significant portion of our funding. Since our recent spin-off from Morgan Stanley, we finance our capital needs with third party funding. We have entered into a multi-year unsecured committed credit facility of $2.5 billion, which contains customary restrictions, covenants and events of default. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” The terms of this facility and any future indebtedness impose various restrictions and covenants on us (such as tangible net worth requirements) that could have adverse consequences, including,

Our total combined indebtedness as of August 31, 2007 was approximately $28.5 billion, as compared to $21.5 billion at August 31, 2006. The increase in indebtedness primarily represents incremental deposits obtained to establish a $8.1 billion liquidity reserve. We may also incur additional substantial indebtedness in the future.

We may be unable to securitize our receivables at acceptable rates or at all, which could materially adversely affect our liquidity, cost of funds, reserves and capital requirements.

The securitization of credit card receivables, which involves the transfer of receivables to a trust and the issuance by the trust of beneficial interests to third-party investors, is our largest single source of funding. Factors affecting our ability to securitize our credit card receivables at acceptable pricing levels, or at all, include the overall credit quality of our receivables, negative credit ratings action affecting our asset-backed securities (or Discover Bank), the stability of the market for securitization transactions, investor demand, and the legal, regulatory, accounting and tax requirements governing securitization transactions. In addition, future changes to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities , as amended, may make it more difficult for us to maintain sale accounting treatment for our securitizations under GAAP or may require us to recognize securitizations on our combined statements of financial condition, which could substantially increase Discover Bank’s regulatory capital requirements.

11

Table of Contents

Our results of operations and financial condition could also be materially adversely affected by the occurrence of events that could result in the early amortization of our securitization transactions. Credit card securitizations are normally structured as “revolving transactions” that do not distribute to securitization investors their share of monthly principal payment on the receivables during the revolving period, and instead use those payments to fund the purchase of replacement receivables. The occurrence of “early amortization events” may result in termination of the revolving period of our securitization transactions. Early amortization events include, for example, insufficient cash flows in the securitized pool of receivables to meet contractual requirements, certain breaches of representations, warranties or covenants in the agreements relating to the securitization, and bankruptcy or insolvency.

If we are unable to continue to securitize our credit card receivables at acceptable pricing levels, or at all, including by reason of the early amortization of any of our securitization transactions, we would seek to liquidate investment securities, increase bank deposits and use alternative funding sources to fund increases in loan receivables and meet our other liquidity needs. In the event of an economic early amortization, receivables that otherwise would have been subsequently purchased by the trust from us would instead continue to be recognized on our combined statements of financial condition since the cash flows generated in the trust would instead be used to repay investors in the asset-backed securities. Recognizing these receivables would require us to obtain alternative funding. Our available investment securities and other alternative sources may be insufficient to meet our funding needs, which could materially adversely affect our liquidity, cost of funds, reserves and capital requirements.

Declines in the value of, or income earned from, our retained interests in our securitization transactions could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We retain interests in the assets transferred to or created in our securitization transactions and earn income from these assets. The value of our retained interests and the amount of income that we earn depend on many factors, including, among others, the revenues, performance and credit risk of the securitized loans, which are subject to the same risks and uncertainties as loans that we have not securitized. The value of our interests may also change because of changes in the assumptions used to estimate their fair value, such as market interest rates and other conditions, increases in bankruptcy or charge-off rates, payment rates and changes in the interpretation and application of accounting rules relating to such valuation. If the income that we earn from our retained interests in securitization transactions were to decrease or the value of our retained interests were to decrease, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

An inability to accept brokered deposits in the future could materially adversely affect our liquidity position and funding costs.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) prohibits a bank, including our subsidiaries Discover Bank and Bank of New Castle, from accepting brokered deposits or offering interest rates on any deposits significantly higher than the prevailing rate in its normal market area or nationally (depending upon where the deposits are solicited), unless (1) it is well-capitalized or (2) it is adequately capitalized and receives a waiver from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). A bank that is adequately capitalized and that accepts brokered deposits under a waiver from the FDIC may not pay an interest rate on any deposit in excess of 75 basis points over certain prevailing market rates. There are no such restrictions on a bank that is well-capitalized. While Discover Bank and Bank of New Castle each met the FDIC’s definition of “well-capitalized” as of August 31, 2007, there can be no assurance that they will continue to meet this definition. An inability to accept brokered deposits in the future could materially adversely affect our liquidity position and funding costs.

We rely in part on unsecured and secured debt for our funding and the inability to access the U.S. or U.K. debt markets could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

While our primary sources of funding are securitizations and brokered deposits, we are also dependent on access to the U.S. and U.K. unsecured debt markets to fund our managed receivables as well as other assets. In

12

Table of Contents

general, the amount, type and cost of our funding directly affects the cost of operating our business and growing our assets and is dependent upon outside factors such as our credit rating from ratings agencies. Historically we have benefited from Morgan Stanley’s credit ratings (Morgan Stanley is rated Aa3 by Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”), AA- by Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”) and AA- by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”)). Discover Bank has maintained its BBB rating from S&P and has been assigned a Baa2 deposit and Baa2 senior unsecured rating from Moody’s and a BBB rating from Fitch. We have been assigned a BBB- long-term rating from S&P, a Baa3 senior unsecured rating from Moody’s and a BBB long-term rating from Fitch. The difference in ratings categories between Morgan Stanley and us reflects the relative risks associated with the different businesses. While business risks are complex and difficult to compare between businesses as different as Morgan Stanley’s and ours, generally Morgan Stanley is more diversified and has greater overall scale than us. A rating is not a recommendation to purchase, sell or hold any particular security. In addition, there can be no assurance that a rating will be maintained for any given period of time or that a rating will not be lowered or withdrawn in its entirety. If our ratings are for any reason further reduced or we are unable to access the U.S. or U.K. unsecured debt markets for any reason, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

In response to the exploration of the spin-off in 2005, Moody’s placed the asset-backed securities issued domestically by the Discover Card Master Trust under review for a possible downgrade, which we believe contributed to a temporary disruption in our ability to access the securitization markets, increasing our reliance on intercompany funding and deposit markets. This disruption lasted approximately five months, at which time Moody’s reaffirmed the ratings on the asset-backed securities.

We may be unable to increase or sustain Discover Card usage, which could impair growth in, or lead to diminishing, average balances and total revenue.

A key element of our strategy is to increase the usage of the Discover Card by our cardmembers, including making it their primary card, and thereby increase our revenue from transaction and service fees and our managed receivables. However, our cardmembers’ use and payment patterns may change because of social, legal and economic factors, and cardmembers may decide not to increase card usage or may decide to pay the balances within the grace period to avoid finance charges. We face challenges from competing credit card products in our attempts to increase credit card usage by our existing cardmembers. Our ability to increase cardmember usage is also dependent on cardmember satisfaction, which may be adversely affected by factors outside of our control, including competitors’ actions. As part of our strategy to increase usage, we are seeking to increase the number of merchants who accept cards issued on the Discover Network. If we are unable to increase merchant acceptance of our cards, our ability to grow usage of Discover Cards may be hampered. As a result of these factors, we may be unable to increase or sustain credit card usage, which could impair growth in, or lead to diminishing, average balances and total revenue.

We may be unable to grow earnings if we do not attract new cardmembers, or if we attract cardmembers with unfavorable spending and payment habits.

We are seeking to increase managed receivables by attracting new cardmembers who will use their Discover Cards, meet their monthly payment obligations and maintain balances that generate interest and fee income for us. We are subject to substantial competition from other credit card issuers for these new cardmembers. We plan to continue marketing the Discover Card, but we may not have adequate financial resources to permit us to incur all of the marketing costs that may be necessary to maintain or grow our managed receivables or to attract new accounts. The spending and payment habits of these new cardmembers may not be sufficient to make their accounts as profitable as we expect. In addition, our risk models may not accurately predict the credit risk for these new cardmembers, which could result in unanticipated losses in future periods. To the extent that the spending and payment habits of new cardmembers do not meet our expectations, our earnings and growth may be negatively affected.

13

Table of Contents

Our transaction volume is concentrated among large merchants, and a reduction in the number of, or rates paid by, merchants that participate in the Discover Network could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Discover Card transaction volume was concentrated among our top 100 merchants in 2006. These merchants may pressure us to reduce our rates by continuing to participate in the Discover Network only on the condition that we change the terms of their economic participation. At the same time, we are subject to increasing pricing pressure from third-party issuers as a result of the continued consolidation in the banking industry, which results in fewer large issuers that, in turn, generally have a greater ability to negotiate pricing discounts. In addition, many of our merchants, primarily our small and mid-size merchants, are not contractually committed to us for any period of time and may cease to participate in the Discover Network at any time on short notice.

In addition, actual and perceived limitations on acceptance of credit cards issued on the Discover Network could adversely affect the use of the Discover Card by existing cardmembers and the attractiveness of the Discover Card to prospective new cardmembers. Furthermore, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining third-party issuers if we are unable to add and retain merchants who accept cards issued on the Discover or PULSE Networks. As a result of these factors, a reduction in the number of, or rates paid by, our merchants could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We may be unable to grow earnings if we are unable to increase the number of small and mid-size merchants that participate in the Discover Network.

In seeking to expand our merchant acceptance among small and mid-size merchants, we have recently started to use third-party acquirers and processors to add merchants to the Discover Network and accept and process payments for these merchants on an integrated basis with Visa and MasterCard payments. This strategy could have results that we do not anticipate, such as decreased revenues, higher expenses, degraded service levels and retaliatory responses from competitors. There can be no assurance that the use of third-party acquirers and processors will increase merchant acceptance among small or mid-size merchants. If we are unable to increase small and mid-size merchant acceptance, our ability to grow earnings could be adversely affected.

Our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by the increasing focus of merchants on the fees charged by credit card networks.

Merchant acceptance and fees are critical to the success of both our card issuing and payment processing businesses. Merchants have shown increasing concern with the levels of fees charged by credit card companies, and have in the past and may in the future seek to negotiate better pricing or other financial incentives as a condition to continued participation in the Discover Network. During the past few years, merchants and their trade groups have filed approximately 50 lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard, American Express and their card-issuing banks, claiming that their practices toward merchants, including interchange fees, violate federal antitrust laws. There can be no assurance that they will not in the future bring legal proceedings against other credit card issuers and networks, including us. Merchants also may promote forms of payment with lower fees, such as PIN debit, or seek to impose surcharges at the point of sale for use of credit cards. The heightened focus by merchants on the fees charged by credit card networks, including us, could lead to reduced merchant acceptance of Discover Network cards or reduced fees, either of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our U.K. operations are currently not profitable, and there can be no assurance when or if they will become profitable.

Our U.K. operations are an important part of our business strategy, and strengthening these operations is one of our primary goals. However, the U.K. market is currently experiencing high delinquencies and bankruptcy levels, compounded by changing regulations, which have resulted in losses in our U.K. operations. Additionally,

14

Table of Contents

the United Kingdom has relatively low levels of interchange and fee income and lower net interest margin, which has resulted in and may continue to result in insufficient revenues to compensate for the current levels of loan losses. Our U.K. operations also have a relatively higher cost structure given their smaller scale.

In addition, we recorded significant goodwill on our combined statements of financial condition in connection with our acquisition of Goldfish in 2006. We may in the future be required to write down goodwill associated with this acquisition.

Our strategy to expand our operations in the United Kingdom may also be unsuccessful for several other reasons, including many of those that are applicable to our attempts to expand our business domestically. In addition to the challenging market conditions described above, U.K. and European regulators have recently increased their focus on the credit card industry. There can be no assurance when or if our U.K. operations will become profitable.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses in the litigation we are pursuing against Visa and MasterCard, and there can be no assurance that we will ultimately be successful in this action.

In October 2004, the DOJ prevailed in its antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard which challenged their exclusionary practices. Following this ruling, we filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard seeking substantial damages for the market foreclosure caused by their anticompetitive rules. The trial date is expected to be no later than Fall 2008. We expect to continue to incur substantial legal expenses in the litigation we are pursuing against Visa and MasterCard. Outside counsel and consultant legal expenses for this litigation were approximately $51 million and $8 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively, with the year-over-year increase primarily due to discovery-related expenses incurred in 2006. Fact discovery is scheduled to be completed in May 2007, and 2007 expenses associated with this litigation are expected to be slightly lower than 2006 expenses. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in recovering any damages in this action. Upon resolution of the litigation, after expenses, we will be required to pay Morgan Stanley the first $700 million of value of cash or non-cash proceeds (increased at the rate of 6% per annum until paid in full) (the “minimum proceeds”), plus 50% of any proceeds in excess of $1.5 billion, subject to certain limitations and a maximum potential payment to Morgan Stanley of $1.5 billion. All payments by Discover to Morgan Stanley will be net of taxes payable by Discover with respect to such proceeds. If, in connection with or following a change of control of Discover, the litigation is settled for an amount less than the minimum proceeds, Discover will be required to pay Morgan Stanley an amount equal to the minimum proceeds. As a result of our agreement to pay the value of non-cash proceeds, we may be required to pay amounts to Morgan Stanley in excess of cash received in connection with the litigation. The value of non-cash proceeds will be determined by an independent third party.

Visa and MasterCard may enact additional restrictions on issuing banks, merchants or merchant acquirers that materially adversely affect the Discover or PULSE Networks, or the Discover Card issuing business.

Visa and MasterCard aggressively seek to protect their networks from competition and have used their rules and policies to do so. For example, in the past they enacted and enforced rules that prohibited their member banks from issuing cards on competing payment networks such as Discover. These rules were ultimately found to violate the antitrust laws. They have adversely affected our business in the past, and they may have lingering effects going forward. Visa and MasterCard also may enact new rules or enforce other rules in the future, including limiting the ability of issuing banks to use the PULSE Network, which may materially adversely affect our ability to compete.

If fraudulent activity associated with our cards increases, our brands could suffer reputational damage, the use of our cards could decrease and our fraud losses could be materially adversely affected.

We are subject to the risk of fraudulent activity associated with merchants, cardmembers and other third parties handling cardmember information. Credit and debit card fraud, identity theft and related crimes are

15

Table of Contents

prevalent and perpetrators are growing ever more sophisticated. Our financial condition, the level of our fraud charge-offs and other results of operations could be materially adversely affected if fraudulent activity were to significantly increase. In addition, significant increases in fraudulent activity could lead to regulatory intervention (such as mandatory card reissuance) and reputational and financial damage to our brands, which could negatively impact the use of our cards and thereby have a material adverse effect on our business.

If our security systems, or those of merchants, merchant acquirers or other third parties containing information about cardholders, are compromised, we may be subject to liability and damage to our reputation.

Our security protection measures, including the security of transaction information processed on our systems or the systems or processing technology of third parties participating in the Discover or PULSE Networks, may not be sufficient to protect the confidentiality of information relating to cardholders or transactions processed on the Discover or PULSE Networks. Cardholder data also is stored on systems of third-party service providers and merchants that may not have adequate security systems. Third-party carriers regularly transport cardholder data, and they may lose sensitive cardholder information. Unauthorized access to the Discover or PULSE Networks or any other Discover information systems potentially could jeopardize the security of confidential information stored in our computer systems or transmitted by our cardmembers or others. If our security systems or those of merchants, processors or other third-party service providers are compromised such that this confidential information is disclosed to unauthorized parties, we may be subject to liability. The preventive measures we take to address these factors are costly, and may become more costly in the future. Moreover, these measures may not protect us from liability, which may not be adequately covered by insurance, or from damage to our reputation.

The financial services and payment services industries are rapidly evolving, and we may be unsuccessful in introducing new products or services in response to this evolution.

The financial services and payment services industries experience constant and significant technological changes, such as continuing development of technologies in the areas of smart cards, radio frequency and proximity payment devices, electronic commerce and mobile commerce, among others. The effect of technological changes on our business is unpredictable.

We depend in part on third parties for the development of and access to new technologies. We expect that new services and technologies relating to the payments business will continue to appear in the market, and these new services and technologies may be superior to, or render obsolete, the technologies that we currently use in our card products and services. As a result, our future success is in part dependent on our ability to identify and adapt to technological changes and evolving industry standards and to provide payment solutions for our cardmembers and merchant and financial institution customers.

Difficulties or delays in the development, production, testing and marketing of new products or services may be caused by a number of factors including, among other things, operational, capital and regulatory constraints. The occurrence of such difficulties may affect the success of our products or services, and developing unsuccessful products and services could result in financial losses, as well as decreased capital availability. In addition, the new products and services offered may not be attractive to our cardmembers and merchant and financial institution customers.

If key technology platforms such as our transaction authorization and settlement systems become obsolete, or if we encounter difficulties processing transactions efficiently or at all, our revenue or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

We have a large technology staff utilizing current technology. There is no assurance that we may be able to sustain our investment in new technology to avoid obsolescence of critical systems and applications. Further, our transaction authorization and settlement systems may encounter service interruptions due to system or software failure, fire, natural disasters, power loss, disruptions in long distance or local telecommunications access,

16

Table of Contents

terrorism or accident. Some of our transaction processing systems are operated at a single facility and could be subject to service interruptions in the event of failure. Our services could be disrupted by a natural disaster or other problem at any of our primary or back-up facilities or our other owned or leased facilities.

We also depend on third-party service providers for the timely transmission of information across our data transportation network and for other telecommunications and technology services, including ancillary transaction processing services for the PULSE Network. Regardless of whether as a result of natural disaster, operational disruption, terrorism, termination of its relationship with us, or any other reason, if a service provider fails to provide the communications capacity or deliver services that we require or expect, the failure could interrupt our services and operations and hamper our ability to process cardholders’ transactions in a timely and accurate manner or to maintain thorough and accurate records of those transactions. Such a failure could adversely affect the perception of the reliability of the Discover and PULSE Networks and the quality of our brands, and could materially adversely affect our revenues or results of operations.

Merchant defaults may adversely affect our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

As an issuer and merchant acquirer in the United States on the Discover Network, and an issuer in the United Kingdom on the MasterCard and Visa networks, we may be contingently liable for certain disputed credit card sales transactions that arise between cardholders and merchants. If a dispute is resolved in the cardholder’s favor, we will cause a credit or refund of the amount to be issued to the cardholder and charge back the transaction to the merchant. If we are unable to collect this amount from the merchant or a third-party acquirer, we will bear the loss for the amount credited or refunded to the cardholder. Where the purchased product or service is not provided until some later date following the purchase, such as an airline ticket, the likelihood of potential liability increases. See Note 20: Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees to the audited combined financial statements and Note 7: Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees to the unaudited financial statements.

Our success is dependent, in part, upon our executive officers and other key personnel, and the loss of key personnel could materially adversely affect our business.

Our success depends, in part, on our executive officers and other key personnel. Our senior management team has significant industry experience and would be difficult to replace. Moreover, our senior management team is relatively small and we believe we are in a critical period of competition in the financial services and payments industry. The market for qualified individuals is highly competitive, and we may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel or candidates to replace or succeed members of our senior management team or other key personnel. The loss of key personnel could materially adversely affect our business.

We may be unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property, including our brands.

The Discover, Goldfish and PULSE brands are very important assets, and our success is dependent on our ability to protect these and our other intellectual property. We may not be able to successfully protect our intellectual property. If others misappropriate, use or otherwise diminish the value of our intellectual property, our business could be adversely affected.

Increased usage by consumers of credit sources such as home equity loans and mortgage refinancings instead of credit card borrowings could adversely affect our business.

During the last few years, lower interest rates and other factors have led to increased availability to consumers of credit sources such as home equity loans and mortgage refinancings at comparatively attractive interest rates. These and other options for consumer credit compete with our card products as alternative sources for consumer borrowing, as consumers may finance expenditures or refinance account balances with these alternative sources of credit. Increased usage by consumers of such alternative sources of credit could adversely affect our businesses.

17

Table of Contents

Acquisitions that we pursue could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition.

We may consider or undertake strategic acquisitions of businesses, products or technologies. If we do so, we may not be able to successfully finance or integrate any such businesses, products or technologies. In addition, the integration of any acquisition may divert management’s time and resources from our core business and disrupt our operations. We may allocate resources, such as time and money, on projects that do not increase our earnings. To the extent we pay the purchase price of any acquisition in cash, it would reduce our cash balances; similarly, if the purchase price is paid with our stock, it could be dilutive to our stockholders.

We are subject to regulation by a number of different regulatory agencies, which have broad discretion to require us to alter our operations in ways that could adversely affect our business or subject us to penalties for noncompliance.

We must comply with an array of banking and consumer lending laws and regulations at the state, federal, U.K. and European levels, and these laws and regulations apply to almost every aspect of our business. We are subject to regulation and regular examinations by the FDIC, the Office of the Delaware State Bank Commissioner and the Financial Services Authority of the United Kingdom (“FSA”). In addition, we are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, state banking regulators, U.S. Department of Justice and European regulators, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Stock Exchange in our capacity as a public company. From time to time, these regulations and regulatory agencies have required us to alter certain of our operating practices, and may require us to do the same in the future. Our ability to introduce new products may be impaired or delayed as a result of regulatory review or failure to obtain required regulatory approvals. We conduct our business primarily through our banks, and various federal, state and European regulators have broad discretion to impose restrictions on our operations. U.S. federal and state consumer protection laws and rules, and laws and rules of foreign jurisdictions where we conduct business limit the manner and terms on which we may offer and extend credit. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could lead to adverse consequences such as financial, structural, reputational and operational penalties, including receivership and litigation exposure and fines. In addition, efforts to abide by these laws and regulations may increase our costs of operations or limit our ability to engage in certain business activities, including affecting our ability to generate or collect receivables from cardmembers.

Changes in regulations, or the application thereof, may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Periodically, regulatory authorities may enact new laws or amend existing laws to further regulate the industries in which we operate. Such new laws or rules could impose limits on the amount of interest or fees we can charge, curtail our ability to collect on account balances, increase compliance costs or materially affect us or the credit card industry in some other manner. For instance, in the past we have been obligated by industry-wide regulatory guidance to change our re-age policy to alter the terms under which delinquent accounts are returned to a current status, which negatively affected our charge-off and delinquency rates. Also, in response to industry-wide regulatory guidance, we increased minimum payment requirements on certain credit card loans and modified our overlimit fee policies and procedures to stop charging such fees for accounts meeting specific criteria, which have impacted, and we believe will continue to negatively impact, balances of credit card loans and related interest and fee revenue and charge-offs. We cannot predict whether any additional or similar regulatory changes will occur in the future.

Congress is considering legislation to restrict certain practices in the credit card industry, including those relating to grace periods, two-cycle billing method (which we utilize on most of our products), risk-based penalty pricing, interest rates, use of arbitration agreements and fees. It is not clear at this time whether new limitations on credit card practices will be adopted by Congress or at the state level and, if adopted, what impact such new limitations would have on us. In addition, the laws governing bankruptcy and debtor relief in the United States, the United Kingdom or other countries where we have cardmembers, could also change, making it more expensive or more difficult for us to collect from our cardmembers. Also, Congress may move to regulate

18

Table of Contents

holding companies that own depository institutions, such as us, which could result in additional complexity and expense. Congress is also considering granting the FDIC rulemaking authority under unfair and deceptive practices laws. Furthermore, various federal and state agencies and standard-setting bodies may, from time to time, enact new or amend existing accounting rules or standards that could impact our business practices or funding transactions.

Regulation of the credit card industry, including regulation applicable to Discover Card and merchants that accept it, has expanded significantly in recent years. For instance, financial institutions, including us, were required to implement an enhanced anti-money laundering program in 2002 pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act. Various U.S. federal and state regulatory agencies and state legislatures are considering new legislation or regulations relating to the use of credit cards to purchase online prescription drugs and to finance Internet gambling, patent reform, identity theft, account maintenance guidelines, privacy, disclosure rules, data security and marketing that could have a direct effect on us and our merchant and financial institution customers.

In the United Kingdom, during the last three years there have been increasing regulatory initiatives with respect to late and overlimit fees, interchange fees and the sale of retail insurance products, a relaxation of bankruptcy laws and an increase in industry-wide consumer protection measures. We expect that these initiatives and measures will continue to increase our compliance costs and the risk of consumer complaints, litigation and regulatory inquiries, as well as materially adversely affect the economics of our business.

Current and proposed regulation addressing consumer privacy and data use and security could inhibit the number of payment cards issued and increase our costs.

Regulatory pronouncements relating to consumer privacy, data use and security affect our business. In the United States, we are subject to the Federal Trade Commission’s and the banking regulators’ information safeguard rules under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The rules require that financial institutions (including us) develop, implement and maintain a written, comprehensive information security program containing safeguards that are appropriate to the financial institution’s size and complexity, the nature and scope of the financial institution’s activities, and the sensitivity of any customer information at issue. Both the United States and the United Kingdom have experienced a heightened legislative and regulatory focus on data security, including, in the United States, requiring consumer notification in the event of a data breach. In the United States, there are a number of bills pending in Congress and in individual states, and there have been numerous legislative hearings focusing on these issues. In addition, a number of states have enacted security breach legislation requiring varying levels of consumer notification in the event of certain types of security breaches, and several other states are considering similar legislation. In the United Kingdom, there are detailed regulations on data privacy under the European Commission Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) and the U.K. Data Protection Act of 1998, which are enforced by the Information Commissioner, the United Kingdom’s privacy regulator.

Regulation of privacy, data use and security may cause an increase in the costs to issue payment cards and/or may decrease the number of our cards that we or third parties issue. New regulations in these areas may also increase our costs to comply with such regulations, which could materially adversely affect our earnings. In addition, failure to comply with the privacy and data use and security laws and regulations to which we are subject, including by reason of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, could result in fines, sanctions, penalties or other adverse consequences and loss of consumer confidence, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, overall business and reputation.

Legislation or regulation could be enacted requiring us to hold higher levels of capital, which we may not be able to obtain and which would reduce our return on capital.

Discover Bank and Bank of New Castle are subject to capital, funding and liquidity requirements prescribed by statutes, regulation and orders. If new legislation or regulations are enacted that increase the levels of regulatory capital that are required, we may be required to obtain additional capital. In addition, regulators have broad discretion to impose additional capital and other requirements on us, including imposing restrictions on the

19

Table of Contents

ability of our regulated subsidiaries to pay dividends. Our ability to obtain additional capital would be dependent upon, among other things, general economic conditions, our financial performance and prospects, and our ability and willingness to make capital contributions to Discover Bank and Bank of New Castle. If we were required to increase capital for Discover Bank or Bank of New Castle, it would have the effect of reducing our return on capital. In addition, if Discover Bank and Bank of New Castle were to fail to meet these regulatory capital requirements, it would become subject to restrictions that could materially adversely affect our ability to conduct normal operations.

Litigation and regulatory actions could subject us to significant fines, penalties and/or requirements resulting in increased expenses.

Businesses in the credit card industry have historically been subject to various significant legal actions, including class action lawsuits and patent claims. Many of these actions have included claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. While we have historically relied on our arbitration clause in agreements with cardmembers, which has limited our exposure to consumer class action litigation, there can be no assurance that we will continue to be successful in enforcing our arbitration clause in the future or that we will not be subject to significant legal actions such as those to which some of our competitors have been subject. In addition, we may be involved in various actions or proceedings brought by governmental regulatory agencies in the event of noncompliance with laws or regulations, which could subject us to significant fines, penalties and/or requirements resulting in increased expenses.

Risks Related to the Spin-Off

Our cost of funding increased after our separation from Morgan Stanley, and our liquidity may decrease.

While Morgan Stanley provided a significant portion of our funding in recent years, it no longer provides any funding following our spin-off. We have lower credit ratings and more constrained liquidity than our former parent company, Morgan Stanley. Although our debt is currently rated investment grade, a credit ratings downgrade to below investment grade would reduce our investor base and increase our cost of funding. Our liquidity may also decrease, and we may be less able to withstand a liquidity stress event. We may also face additional challenges in the future, including more limited capital resources to invest in or expand our businesses.

Our historical financial results are as a business segment of Morgan Stanley and therefore may not be representative of our results as a separate, stand-alone company.

The historical financial information we have included in this prospectus has been derived from Morgan Stanley’s consolidated financial statements and does not necessarily reflect what our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows would have been had we operated as a separate, stand-alone company during the periods presented. The historical costs and expenses reflected in our audited combined financial statements include an allocation for certain corporate functions historically provided by Morgan Stanley, including general corporate expenses, employee benefits and incentives. These allocations were based on what we and Morgan Stanley considered to be reasonable reflections of the historical utilization levels of these services required in support of our business. The historical information does not necessarily indicate what our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows or costs and expenses will be in the future. Our pro forma adjustments reflect changes that may occur in our funding and operations as a result of the separation. However, we cannot assure you that these adjustments will reflect our costs as a publicly traded, stand-alone company. For additional information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Selected Historical Combined and Condensed Consolidated Financial Data,” “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Statements of Income” and the notes to those statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.

20

Table of Contents

The obligations associated with being a public company require significant resources and management attention.

In connection with our recent separation from Morgan Stanley, we have become subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”). The Exchange Act requires that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures for financial reporting. All of the procedures and practices required of us as a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley were established prior to the spin-off, but we have additional procedures and practices required of us as a separate, stand-alone public company. As a result, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not previously incur. Furthermore, the corporate infrastructure and other resources required to operate as a public company may divert management’s attention from implementing our growth strategy, which could prevent us from improving our business, results of operations and financial condition. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our internal controls and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations. We cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur in order to comply with these requirements.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, starting with the second annual report that we file with the SEC. In connection with the implementation of the necessary procedures and practices related to internal controls over financial reporting, we may identify deficiencies that we may not be able to remediate in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for compliance with the requirements of Section 404. We will be unable to issue securities in the public markets through the use of a shelf registration statement if we are not in compliance with Section 404. In addition, failure to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

As a result of our separation from Morgan Stanley we may experience increased costs resulting from a decrease in the purchasing power and other operational efficiencies we previously had due to our association with Morgan Stanley.

Prior to our separation from Morgan Stanley, we were able to take advantage of Morgan Stanley’s purchasing power in procuring goods, technology and services, including insurance, employee benefit support and audit services. As a smaller separate, stand-alone company, we may be unable to obtain goods, technology and services at prices and on terms as favorable as those available to us prior to the separation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. Our tax liability may also increase due to increased state income taxes in the jurisdictions where combined filings were previously made with Morgan Stanley.

In connection with our separation from Morgan Stanley, we have assumed past, present and future liabilities related to our business, and have entered into agreements relating to the ongoing provision of services and other matters which may be on terms less favorable to us than if they had been negotiated with another party.

Pursuant to certain agreements we entered into with Morgan Stanley in connection with the spin-off, we have agreed to indemnify Morgan Stanley for, among other matters, past, present and future liabilities related to our business. Such liabilities include unknown liabilities, which could be significant.

We entered into these agreements and other agreements relating to the ongoing provision of services and other matters with Morgan Stanley while still a wholly-owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. Accordingly, the terms of those agreements may not reflect those that would have been reached with another party. If these agreements were to have been entered into with another party, we may have obtained more favorable terms than under these agreements.

21

Table of Contents

We must abide by certain restrictions to preserve the tax treatment of the distribution of our common stock by Morgan Stanley and we must indemnify Morgan Stanley for taxes resulting from certain actions we take that cause the distribution to fail to qualify as a tax-free transaction.

Morgan Stanley has received a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that, based on customary representations and qualifications, the distribution of our common stock by Morgan Stanley was tax-free to Morgan Stanley stockholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes. These representations include representations as to the satisfaction of certain requirements that must be met in order for the distribution to qualify for tax-free treatment under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and state law. If any of the representations and assumptions upon which the ruling is based is untrue or incomplete in any material respect, Morgan Stanley may not be able to rely upon the ruling.

If the distribution were not to qualify for tax-free treatment under sections 355, 368 and related provisions of the Code, Morgan Stanley would recognize taxable gain equal to the excess of the fair market value of our stock over Morgan Stanley’s tax basis in our stock. Under certain circumstances, we would be required under the U.S. tax sharing agreement entered into between Morgan Stanley and us to indemnify Morgan Stanley for all or a portion of this liability. In addition, each holder who received our common stock in the distribution would be treated as receiving a taxable distribution in an amount equal to the fair market value of our common stock received.

Even if the distribution otherwise qualifies as a tax-free distribution under the Code, current tax law generally creates a presumption that the distribution would be taxable to Morgan Stanley (but not to its stockholders) if we engage in, or enter into an agreement to engage in, a transaction that would result in a 50% or greater change, by vote or by value, in our stock ownership during the four-year period beginning on the date that begins two years before the distribution date, unless it is established that the transaction is not pursuant to a plan or series of transactions related to the distribution. Treasury regulations currently in effect generally provide that whether an acquisition transaction and a distribution are part of a plan is determined based on all of the facts and circumstances including, but not limited to, specific factors listed in the regulations. In addition, the regulations provide several “safe harbors” for acquisition transactions that are not considered to be part of a plan.

Under the U.S. tax sharing agreement entered into between Morgan Stanley and us, for a period of two years following the distribution, generally we may not take certain actions unless Morgan Stanley provides us with prior written consent for such action, or we provide Morgan Stanley with a tax ruling or rulings, or an unqualified opinion of counsel, in each case acceptable to Morgan Stanley, to the effect that the action will not affect the tax-free nature of the separation and distribution, but we will remain liable for any taxes and other liabilities imposed as a result of the separation and distribution failing to qualify as a tax-free transaction, as a result of such action. These restrictions may prevent us from entering into strategic or other transactions which might be advantageous to us or to our stockholders, such as issuing equity securities to satisfy our financing needs, acquiring businesses or assets by issuing equity securities, or mergers or other business combinations. For additional information, see “Arrangements Between Us and Morgan Stanley—Tax Sharing Agreements.”

Our ability to operate our business effectively may suffer if we do not, quickly and cost effectively, establish our own financial, administrative and other support functions to operate as a stand-alone company.

Historically, we have relied on certain financial, administrative and other resources of Morgan Stanley to operate our business. In conjunction with our separation from Morgan Stanley, we have enhanced and will need to continue to enhance our own financial, administrative and other support systems or contract with third parties to replace Morgan Stanley’s systems. We will also need to continue to establish our own accounting and auditing policies and systems on a stand-alone basis.

Prior to our spin-off, Morgan Stanley performed many important corporate functions for our operations, including portions of human resources, information technology, accounting, office space leasing, corporate

22

Table of Contents

services and treasury. We estimate the annual costs associated with replacing these functions and establishing our own infrastructure related thereto, to be approximately $60 million. See “Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed Combined Statements of Income.” Prior to the spin-off, we entered into agreements with Morgan Stanley under which Morgan Stanley will provide some of these services to us on a transitional basis, for which we will pay Morgan Stanley. See “Arrangements Between Us and Morgan Stanley” for a description of these arrangements. Upon the occurrence of certain events, including a change of control, Morgan Stanley may terminate these services. These services may not be sufficient to meet our needs and, after these agreements with Morgan Stanley expire or are terminated, we may not be able to replace these services at all or obtain these services at acceptable prices and terms. Any failure or significant downturn in our own financial or administrative policies and systems or in Morgan Stanley’s financial or administrative policies and systems during the transitional period could impact our results and could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the United Kingdom, prior to our separation from Morgan Stanley, we shared a brand and bank charter with Morgan Stanley, and our primary card brand was “Morgan Stanley.” From the date of the spin-off, we have a limited right to use the Morgan Stanley brand for three years, following which we will not be able to use this brand. We expect our primary brand in the United Kingdom will be Goldfish, and we will also utilize other brands. Transitioning to a new brand will result in increased marketing and transitional costs and may result in customer attrition.

Risks Related to the Exchange Offer

Failure to exchange your old notes will leave them subject to transfer restrictions.

Any old notes that remain outstanding after this exchange offer will continue to be subject to restrictions on their transfer. After this exchange offer, holders of old notes will not have any further rights under the registration rights agreement that applies to their notes, with limited exceptions. In general, old notes may not be offered or sold unless registered under the Securities Act, except pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws. We currently do not anticipate registering the old notes under the Securities Act. As old notes are tendered and accepted in the exchange offer, the aggregate principal amount of old notes will decrease, which will decrease their liquidity. Any market for old notes that are not exchanged could be adversely affected by the conclusion of this exchange offer.

Late deliveries of the old notes and other required documents could prevent a holder from exchanging its notes.

Holders are responsible for complying with all exchange offer procedures. Issuance of exchange notes in exchange for old notes will only occur upon completion of the procedures described in this prospectus under the heading “The Exchange Offer—Procedures for Tendering Old Notes.” Therefore, holders of old notes who wish to exchange them for exchange notes should allow sufficient time for completion of the exchange procedures. We are not obligated to notify you of any failure to follow the proper procedures.

If you are a broker-dealer, your ability to transfer the exchange notes may be restricted.

A broker-dealer that purchased old notes for its own account as part of market making or trading activities must deliver a prospectus when it sells the exchange notes. Our obligation to make this prospectus available to broker-dealers is limited. Consequently, we cannot guarantee that a proper prospectus will be available to broker-dealers wishing to resell their exchange notes.

23

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Exchange Notes

We are a holding company that conducts all of our business through subsidiaries. The debt and other liabilities of our subsidiaries will be effectively senior to the exchange notes.

We conduct all of our business through our subsidiaries. Our cash flow and, consequently, our ability to pay interest in cash and to service our debt, including the exchange notes, are dependent to a certain extent upon the cash flow of our subsidiaries and the payment of funds to us by those subsidiaries in the form of loans, dividends or otherwise. Our subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities and have no obligation, contingent or otherwise, to pay any amounts due on the exchange notes or to make cash available for that purpose. In addition, many of our operating subsidiaries are highly regulated and may be subject to restrictions on their ability to pay dividends to us. These subsidiaries may use the earnings they generate, as well as their existing assets, to fulfill their own direct debt service requirements.

The exchange notes will be our senior unsecured obligations and will rank equally with all of our existing and future senior unsecured indebtedness. To the extent that any of our subsidiaries have outstanding indebtedness, the exchange notes will effectively rank junior to such indebtedness and other liabilities, including deposits. See “Description of the Exchange Notes—Ranking.”

There are no covenants in the indentures governing the exchange notes relating to our ability to incur future indebtedness or pay dividends and limited restrictions on our ability to engage in other activities, which could adversely affect our ability to pay our obligations under the exchange notes.

The indenture governing the exchange notes does not contain any financial covenants. The indenture permits us and our subsidiaries to incur additional debt, including secured debt. Because the exchange notes will be unsecured, in the event of any liquidation, dissolution, reorganization, bankruptcy or other similar proceeding regarding us, whether voluntary or involuntary, the holders of our secured debt will be entitled to receive payment to the extent of the assets securing that debt before we can make any payment with respect to the exchange notes. If any of the foregoing events occurs, we cannot assure you that we will have sufficient assets to pay amounts due on our debt and the exchange notes. As a result, you may receive less than you are entitled to receive or recover nothing if any liquidation, dissolution, reorganization, bankruptcy or other similar proceeding occurs.

The indenture will not limit our subsidiaries’ ability to issue or repurchase securities, pay dividends or engage in transactions with affiliates. Our ability to use our funds for numerous purposes may limit the funds available to pay our obligations under the exchange notes.

There may not be a public market for the exchange notes.

The exchange notes constitute a new issue of securities with no established trading market. We do not intend to list the exchange notes on any securities exchange or to include the exchange notes in any automated quotation system. Accordingly, no market for the exchange notes may develop, and any market that develops may not last. If the exchange notes are traded, they may trade at a discount from their initial offering price, depending on prevailing interest rates, the market for similar securities, our performance and other factors. To the extent that an active trading market does not develop, you may not be able to resell your exchange notes at their fair market value or at all.

24

Table of Contents