Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

or

Commission File Number 1-34073

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (614) 480-8300

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Title of class

Floating Rate Series B Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock

Depositary Shares (each representing a 1/40th interest in a share of Floating Rate Series B Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Exchange Act.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act)        ¨  Yes        x  No

The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2011, determined by using a per share closing price of $6.56, as quoted by NASDAQ on that date, was $5,533,232,959. As of January 31, 2012, there were 864,378,203 shares of common stock with a par value of $0.01 outstanding.

Documents Incorporated By Reference

Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting.

Table of Contents

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES INCORPORATED

INDEX

i

Table of Contents

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

The following listing provides a comprehensive reference of common acronyms and terms used throughout the document:

ii

Table of Contents

iii

Table of Contents

iv

Table of Contents

Huntington Bancshares Incorporated

PART I

When we refer to “we,” “our,” and “us” in this report, we mean Huntington Bancshares Incorporated and our consolidated subsidiaries, unless the context indicates that we refer only to the parent company, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated. When we refer to the “Bank” in this report, we mean our only bank subsidiary, The Huntington National Bank, and its subsidiaries.

We are a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. We have 11,245 full-time equivalent employees. Through the Bank, we have 146 years of serving the financial needs of our customers. We provide full-service commercial, small business, consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, customized insurance programs, and other financial products and services. The Bank, organized in 1866, is our only bank subsidiary. At December 31, 2011, the Bank had 652 branches as follows:

Select financial services and other activities are also conducted in various other states. International banking services are available through the headquarters office in Columbus, Ohio, and a limited purpose office located in the Cayman Islands, and another limited purpose office located in Hong Kong. Our foreign banking activities, in total or with any individual country, are not significant.

Our business segments are based on our internally-aligned segment leadership structure, which is how we monitor results and assess performance. For each of our four business segments, we expect the combination of our business model and exceptional service to provide a competitive advantage that supports revenue and earnings growth. Our business model emphasizes the delivery of a complete set of banking products and services offered by larger banks, but distinguished by local delivery and customer service.

A key strategic emphasis has been for our business segments to operate in cooperation to provide products and services to our customers and to build stronger and more profitable relationships using our Optimal Customer Relationship (OCR) sales and service process. The objectives of OCR are to:

Following is a description of our four business segments and Treasury / Other function:

1

Table of Contents

A Treasury / Other function includes our insurance brokerage business, which specializes in commercial property and casualty, employee benefits, personal lines, life and disability and specialty lines of insurance. We also provide brokerage and agency services for residential and commercial title insurance and excess and surplus product lines of insurance. As an agent and broker we do not assume underwriting risks; instead we provide our customers with quality, noninvestment insurance contracts. The Treasury / Other function also includes technology and operations, other unallocated assets, liabilities, revenue, and expense.

2

Table of Contents

The financial results for each of these business segments are included in Note 25 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and are discussed in the Business Segment Discussion of our MD&A.

Competition

Although there has been consolidation in the financial services industry, our markets remain competitive. We compete with other banks and financial services companies such as savings and loans, credit unions, and finance and trust companies, as well as mortgage banking companies, automobile and equipment financing companies (including captive automobile finance companies), insurance companies, mutual funds, investment advisors, and brokerage firms, both within and outside of our primary market areas. Internet companies are also providing nontraditional, but increasingly strong, competition for our borrowers, depositors, and other customers.

We compete for loans primarily on the basis of a combination of value and service by building customer relationships as a result of addressing our customers’ entire suite of banking needs, demonstrating expertise, and providing convenience to our customers. We also consider the competitive pricing pressures in each of our markets.

We compete for deposits similarly on a basis of a combination of value and service and by providing convenience through a banking network of over 600 branches and over 1,300 ATMs within our markets and our award-winning website at www.huntington.com. We have also instituted new and more customer friendly practices, such as our 24-Hour Grace^® account feature, which gives customers an additional business day to cover overdrafts to their consumer account without being charged overdraft fees.

The table below shows our competitive ranking and market share based on deposits of FDIC-insured institutions as of June 30, 2011, in the top 12 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) in which we compete:

Source: FDIC.gov, based on June 30, 2011 survey.

Many of our nonfinancial institution competitors have fewer regulatory constraints, broader geographic service areas, greater capital, and, in some cases, lower cost structures. In addition, competition for quality customers has intensified as a result of changes in regulation, advances in technology and product delivery systems, consolidation among financial service providers, bank failures, and the conversion of certain former investment banks to bank holding companies.

3

Table of Contents

Regulatory Matters

We are subject to regulation by the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the CFPB, and other federal and state regulators.

Because we are a public company, we are subject to regulation by the SEC. The SEC has established four categories of issuers for the purpose of filing periodic and annual reports. Under these regulations, we are considered to be a large accelerated filer and, as such, must comply with SEC accelerated reporting requirements.

We are a bank holding company and are qualified as a financial holding company with the Federal Reserve. We are subject to examination and supervision by the Federal Reserve pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act. We are required to file reports and other information regarding our business operations and the business operations of our subsidiaries with the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve maintains a bank holding company rating system that emphasizes risk management, introduces a framework for analyzing and rating financial factors, and provides a framework for assessing and rating the potential impact of nondepository entities of a holding company on its subsidiary depository institution(s). A composite rating is assigned based on the foregoing three components, but a fourth component is also rated, reflecting generally the assessment of depository institution subsidiaries by their principal regulators. The bank holding company rating system, which became effective in 2005, applies to us. The composite ratings assigned to us, like those assigned to other financial institutions, are confidential and may not be disclosed, except to the extent required by law.

The Bank, which is chartered by the OCC, is a national bank, and our only bank subsidiary. It is subject to examination and supervision by the OCC and by the CFPB established by the Dodd-Frank Act. Our nonbank subsidiaries are also subject to examination and supervision by the Federal Reserve or, in the case of nonbank subsidiaries of the Bank, by the OCC. Our subsidiaries are subject to examination by other federal and state agencies, including, in the case of certain securities and investment management activities, regulation by the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

The Bank is subject to affiliate transaction restrictions under federal law, which limit certain transactions generally involving the transfer of funds by a subsidiary bank or its subsidiaries to its parent corporation or any nonbank subsidiary of its parent corporation, whether in the form of loans, extensions of credit, investments, or asset purchases, or otherwise undertaking certain obligations on behalf of such affiliates. Furthermore, covered transactions which are loans and extensions of credit must be secured within specified amounts. In addition, all covered transactions and other affiliate transactions must be conducted on a market terms basis and under circumstances that are substantially the same as such transactions with unaffiliated entities.

Legislative and regulatory reforms continue to have significant impacts throughout the financial services industry.

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted. The Dodd-Frank Act, which is complex and broad in scope, established the CFPB, which has extensive regulatory and enforcement powers over consumer financial products and services, and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which has oversight authority for monitoring and regulating systemic risk. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act alters the authority and duties of the federal banking and securities regulatory agencies, implements certain corporate governance requirements for all public companies including financial institutions with regard to executive compensation, proxy access by shareholders, and certain whistleblower provisions, and restricts certain proprietary trading and hedge fund and private equity activities of banks and their affiliates. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the issuance of many implementing regulations which will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall impact to us, our customers, or the financial industry more generally. With the appointment of a director for the CFPB in January 2012, the CFPB began to exercise its full authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. While the overall impact cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we are impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act primarily in the area of capital requirements.

4

Table of Contents

In addition to the impact of federal and state regulation, the Bank and our nonbank subsidiaries are affected significantly by the actions of the Federal Reserve as it attempts to control the money supply and credit availability in order to influence the economy.

Our Tier 1 risk-based capital will be negatively impacted by the Collins Amendment provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Collins Amendment provision of the Dodd-Frank Act imposes increased capital requirements in the future. The Collins Amendment also requires federal banking regulators to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements to apply to insured depository institutions, bank and thrift holding companies, and systemically important nonbank financial companies. These capital requirements must not be less than the Generally Applicable Risk Based Capital Requirements and the Generally Applicable Leverage Capital Requirements as of July 21, 2010, and must not be quantitatively lower than the requirements that were in effect for insured depository institution as of July 21, 2010. The Collins Amendment defines Generally Applicable Risk Based Capital Requirements and Generally Applicable Leverage Capital Requirements to mean the risk-based capital requirements and minimum ratios of Tier 1 risk-based capital to average total assets, respectively, established by the appropriate federal banking agencies to apply to insured depository institutions under the Prompt Corrective Action provisions, regardless of total consolidated asset size or foreign financial exposure. Over a three year phase-out period beginning on January 1, 2013, trust preferred securities will no longer qualify as Tier 1 risk-based capital for certain bank holding companies, including us. We have plans in place, including the fourth quarter 2011 trust preferred securities redemption, to minimize the impact of this amendment on us.

Large bank holding companies are now required to submit annual capital plans to the Federal Reserve and conduct stress tests.

The Federal Reserve published final amendments to Regulation Y to require large bank holding companies to submit capital plans to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis and to require such bank holding companies to obtain approval from the Federal Reserve under certain circumstances before making a capital distribution. This rule applies to us and all other bank holding companies with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets. The first capital plans required under these rules were due on January 9, 2012. A large bank holding company’s capital plan must include an assessment of the expected uses and sources of capital over at least the next nine quarters, a detailed description of the entity’s process for assessing capital adequacy, the entity’s capital policy, and a discussion of any expected changes to the banking holding company’s business plan that are likely to have a material impact on the firm’s capital adequacy or liquidity. The Federal Reserve will either object to a capital plan, in whole or in part, or provide a notice of non-objection by March 31, 2012, for plans submitted by the January 9, 2012 submission date. If the Federal Reserve objects to a capital plan, the bank holding company may not make any capital distribution other than those with respect to which the Federal Reserve has indicated its non-objection. While we can give no assurances as to the outcome or specific interactions with the regulators, we believe we have a strong capital position.

The Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC banking regulators issued proposed rules to implement section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act which requires financial institutions with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion (“covered banks”) to conduct certain stress tests on an annual basis. The Federal Reserve issued their final capital plan rule in late 2011 and recently released proposed rules for the enhanced prudential standards requirements for bank holding companies having assets of $50 billion or more. The OCC and FDIC have separately released their proposed rules regarding annual stress tests. The Dodd-Frank Act requires these regulations to define the term “stress test”; establish methodologies for the conduct of the stress tests that measure the Tier 1 common risk-based capital ratio under at least three different sets of conditions, including baseline, adverse, and severely adverse conditions; establish the form and content of a required regulatory report on the stress tests; and require covered banks to publish a summary of the results of their stress tests. We submitted our capital plan to the Federal Reserve in January 2012. We are currently evaluating the impacts to us under the OCC and FDIC proposals and may need to file additional capital plans with these regulators.

5

Table of Contents

The regulatory capital rules indicate that common stockholders’ equity should be the dominant element within Tier 1 capital and that banking organizations should avoid overreliance on non-common equity elements. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the ratio of Tier 1 common equity to risk-weighted assets became significant as a measurement of the predominance of common equity in Tier 1 capital and an indication of the quality of capital. There is currently no mandated minimum for the Tier 1 common risk-based capital ratio.

We are required to submit a resolution plan to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.

The Federal Reserve and FDIC have issued final regulations as required by section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding resolution plans, also referred to as “living wills.” The Federal Reserve and FDIC issued final rules applicable to bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more, which became effective November 30, 2011. The FDIC issued final rules applicable to insured depository institutions with assets of $50 billion or more, which will become effective April 1, 2012. Insured depository institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets, like us, must submit to the FDIC a plan whereby the institution can be resolved by the FDIC, in the event of failure, in a manner that ensures depositors will receive access to insured funds within the required timeframes and generally ensures an orderly liquidation of the institution. Additionally, bank holding companies, like us, with assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a plan that, in the event of material financial distress or failure, establishes the rapid and orderly liquidation of the company under the bankruptcy code and in a way that would not pose systemic risk to the financial system of the United States. The regulations allow for a tiered approach for complying with the requirements based on materiality of the institution. Currently, we are required to submit resolution plans as prescribed by December 31, 2013.

Rules have been proposed to implement the Volcker Rule.

In October 2011, the Federal Reserve issued proposed rules to implement the “Volcker Rule” required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Volcker Rule prohibits an insured depository institution and its affiliates from: (i) engaging in “proprietary trading” and (ii) investing in or sponsoring certain types of funds (“covered funds”) subject to certain limited exceptions. These prohibitions are expected to impact the ability of U.S. banking organizations to provide investment management products and services that are competitive with nonbanking firms generally and with non-U.S. banking organizations in overseas markets. The proposed rules would also effectively prohibit short-term trading strategies by any U.S. banking organization if those strategies involve instruments other than those specifically permitted for trading. We do not anticipate that impacts of the proposed rules will be material to our results of operations or financial position.

Compliance with Regulation E has reduced our revenues.

In November 2009, the Federal Reserve Board amended Regulation E under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit banks from charging overdraft fees for ATM or point-of-sale debit card transactions that overdrew the account unless customers opt-in to the discretionary overdraft service and to require banks to explain the terms of their overdraft services and their fees for the services (Regulation E Amendment). Compliance with the Regulation E Amendment was required by July 1, 2010. We complied with the Regulation E Amendment by alerting our customers that we no longer cover such overdrafts unless they opt-in to our overdraft service and disclosed the terms of our service and our fees for the service.

The rules effecting debit card interchange fees under the Durbin Amendment, which became effective on October 1, 2011, have negatively impacted our electronic banking income.

The Durbin Amendment required the Federal Reserve to establish a cap on the rate merchants pay banks for electronic clearing of debit transactions (i.e. the interchange rate). The Federal Reserve issued final rules, effective October 1, 2011, for establishing standards, including a cap, for debit card interchange fees and prohibiting network exclusivity arrangements and routing restrictions. The final rule established standards for assessing whether debit card interchange fees received by debit card issuers were reasonable and proportional to the costs incurred by issuers for electronic debit transactions. Under the final rule, the maximum permissible

6

Table of Contents

interchange fee that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction, a 1 cent fraud prevention adjustment, and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. As a result of implementing this lower debit card interchange fee structure, our 2011 fourth quarter electronic banking income declined $17.3 million from the 2011 third quarter.

The FDIC Deposit Insurance assessment changes have not had a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, major changes were introduced to the FDIC deposit insurance system. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has until the end of September 2020 to bring its reserve ratio to the new statutory minimum of 1.35%. New rules amending the deposit insurance assessment regulations under the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act have been adopted, including a final rule designating 2% as the designated reserve ratio and a final rule extending temporary unlimited deposit insurance to noninterest bearing transaction accounts. On February 7, 2011, the FDIC adopted regulations that were effective for the 2011 second quarter assessment and payable in September 2011, which outlined significant changes in the risk-based premiums approach for banks with over $10 billion of assets and created a scorecard system. The scorecard system uses a performance score and loss severity score, which aggregate to an initial base assessment rate. The assessment base also changed from deposits to an institution’s average total assets minus its average tangible equity. The 2011 FDIC assessment impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements from these assessment changes was not materially different than the prior period.

There are restrictions on our ability to pay dividends.

Dividends from the Bank to the parent company are the primary source of funds for payment of dividends to our shareholders. However, there are statutory limits on the amount of dividends that the Bank can pay to the holding company. Regulatory approval is required prior to the declaration of any dividends in an amount greater than its undivided profits or if the total of all dividends declared in a calendar year would exceed the total of its net income for the year combined with its retained net income for the two preceding years, less any required transfers to surplus or common stock. As a result, for the year ended December 31, 2011, the Bank could not have declared and paid any cash dividends to the parent company.

Since the first quarter of 2008, the Bank has requested and received OCC approval each quarter for a capital reduction to enable payment of periodic dividends to shareholders outside the Bank’s consolidated group on preferred and common stock of its REIT and capital financing subsidiaries. A wholly-owned nonbank subsidiary of the parent company owns a portion of the preferred shares of the REIT and capital financing subsidiaries. With the exception of the REIT and capital financing subsidiary dividends, we do not anticipate that the Bank will declare dividends to the holding company during 2012.

If, in the opinion of the applicable regulatory authority, a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice, such authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from such practice. Depending on the financial condition of the Bank, the applicable regulatory authority might deem us to be engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice if the Bank were to pay dividends. The Federal Reserve and the OCC have issued policy statements that provide that insured banks and bank holding companies should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings. Additionally, the Federal Reserve may prohibit bank holding companies from making any capital distributions, including payment of preferred and common dividends, if the Federal Reserve objects to the annual capital plan.

We are subject to the current capital requirements mandated by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve sets risk-based capital ratio and leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies. Under the guidelines and related policies, bank holding companies must maintain capital sufficient to meet both a risk-based asset ratio test and a leverage ratio test on a consolidated basis. The risk-based ratio is determined by allocating assets and specified off-balance sheet commitments into four weighted categories, with higher weighting

7

Table of Contents

assigned to categories perceived as representing greater risk. The risk-based ratio represents total capital divided by total risk-weighted assets. The leverage ratio is core capital divided by total assets adjusted as specified in the guidelines. The Bank is subject to substantially similar capital requirements. Banking regulators are finalizing changes to capital requirements that are expected to incorporate many of the Basel III capital requirements.

Generally, under the applicable guidelines, a financial institution’s capital is divided into two tiers. Institutions that must incorporate market risk exposure into their risk-based capital requirements may also have a third tier of capital in the form of restricted short-term subordinated debt. These tiers are:

The Federal Reserve and the other federal banking regulators require that all intangible assets (net of deferred tax), except originated or purchased MSRs, nonmortgage servicing assets, and purchased credit card relationships intangible assets, be deducted from Tier 1 capital. However, the total amount of these items included in capital cannot exceed 100% of its Tier 1 capital.

Under the risk-based guidelines to remain adequately-capitalized, financial institutions are required to maintain a total risk-based capital ratio of 8%, with 4% being Tier 1 risk-based capital. The appropriate regulatory authority may set higher capital requirements when they believe an institution’s circumstances warrant.

Under the leverage guidelines, financial institutions are required to maintain a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 3%. The minimum ratio is applicable only to financial institutions that meet certain specified criteria, including excellent asset quality, high liquidity, low interest rate risk exposure, and the highest regulatory rating. Financial institutions not meeting these criteria are required to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%.

Failure to meet applicable capital guidelines could subject the financial institution to a variety of enforcement remedies available to the federal regulatory authorities. These include limitations on the ability to pay dividends, the issuance by the regulatory authority of a directive to increase capital, and the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC. In addition, the financial institution could be subject to the measures described below under Prompt Corrective Action as applicable to under-capitalized institutions.

The risk-based capital standards of the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the FDIC specify that evaluations by the banking agencies of a bank’s capital adequacy will include an assessment of the exposure to declines in the economic value of a bank’s capital due to changes in interest rates. These banking agencies issued a joint policy statement on interest rate risk describing prudent methods for monitoring such risk that rely principally on internal measures of exposure and active oversight of risk management activities by senior management.

FDICIA requires federal banking regulatory authorities to take Prompt Corrective Action with respect to depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. For these purposes, FDICIA establishes five capital tiers: well-capitalized, adequately-capitalized, under-capitalized, significantly under-capitalized, and critically under-capitalized.

8

Table of Contents

Throughout 2011, our regulatory capital ratios and those of the Bank were in excess of the levels established for well-capitalized institutions. An institution is deemed to be well-capitalized if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or greater, and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% or greater and is not subject to a regulatory order, agreement, or directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution, including payment of a cash dividend or paying any management fee to its holding company, if the depository institution would become under-capitalized after such payment. Under-capitalized institutions are also subject to growth limitations and are required by the appropriate federal banking agency to submit a capital restoration plan. If any depository institution subsidiary of a holding company is required to submit a capital restoration plan, the holding company would be required to provide a limited guarantee regarding compliance with the plan as a condition of approval of such plan.

Depending upon the severity of the under capitalization, the under-capitalized institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately-capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks, and restrictions on making any payment of principal or interest on their subordinated debt. Critically under-capitalized institutions are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator within 90 days of becoming so classified.

Under FDICIA, a depository institution that is not well-capitalized is generally prohibited from accepting brokered deposits and offering interest rates on deposits higher than the prevailing rate in its market. Since the Bank is well-capitalized, the FDICIA brokered deposit rule did not adversely affect its ability to accept brokered deposits. The Bank had $1.3 billion of such brokered deposits at December 31, 2011.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, important changes will be implemented beginning January 1, 2013, concerning the capital requirements for financial institutions.

As a bank holding company, we must act as a source of financial and managerial strength to the Bank and the Bank is subject to affiliate transaction restrictions.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a bank holding company must act as a source of financial and managerial strength to each of its subsidiary banks and must commit resources to support each such subsidiary bank. The Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank. It may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices if the bank holding company fails to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank or if it undertakes actions that the Federal Reserve believes might jeopardize the bank holding company’s ability to commit resources to such subsidiary bank.

Any loans by a holding company to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, an

9

Table of Contents

appointed bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, the bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the institution’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations.

Federal law permits the OCC to order the pro-rata assessment of shareholders of a national bank whose capital stock has become impaired, by losses or otherwise, to relieve a deficiency in such national bank’s capital stock. This statute also provides for the enforcement of any such pro-rata assessment of shareholders of such national bank to cover such impairment of capital stock by sale, to the extent necessary, of the capital stock owned by any assessed shareholder failing to pay the assessment. As the sole shareholder of the Bank, we are subject to such provisions.

Moreover, the claims of a receiver of an insured depository institution for administrative expenses and the claims of holders of deposit liabilities of such an institution are accorded priority over the claims of general unsecured creditors of such an institution, including the holders of the institution’s note obligations, in the event of liquidation or other resolution of such institution. Claims of a receiver for administrative expenses and claims of holders of deposit liabilities of the Bank, including the FDIC as the insurer of such holders, would receive priority over the holders of notes and other senior debt of the Bank in the event of liquidation or other resolution and over our interests as sole shareholder of the Bank.

As a financial holding company, we are subject to additional laws and regulations.

In order to maintain its status as a financial holding company, a bank holding company’s depository subsidiaries must all be both well-capitalized and well-managed, and must meet their Community Reinvestment Act obligations.

Financial holding company powers relate to financial activities that are specified in the Bank Holding Company Act or determined by the Federal Reserve, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, to be financial in nature, incidental to an activity that is financial in nature, or complementary to a financial activity, provided that the complementary activity does not pose a safety and soundness risk. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amends the Bank Holding Company Act and designates certain activities as financial in nature, including:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amendments also authorize the Federal Reserve, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, to determine if additional activities are financial in nature or incidental to activities that are financial in nature.

In addition, we are required by the Bank Holding Company Act to obtain Federal Reserve approval prior to acquiring, directly or indirectly, ownership or control of voting shares of any bank, if, after such acquisition, we would own or control more than 5% of its voting stock. Furthermore, the Dodd-Frank Act added a new provision to the Bank Holding Company Act, which requires bank holding companies with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion to obtain prior approval from the Federal Reserve to acquire a nondepository company having total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more.

10

Table of Contents

We also must comply with anti-money laundering, customer privacy, and consumer protection statutes and regulations as well as corporate governance, accounting, and reporting requirements.

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 and its related regulations require insured depository institutions, broker-dealers, and certain other financial institutions to have policies, procedures, and controls to detect, prevent, and report money laundering and terrorist financing. The statute and its regulations also provide for information sharing, subject to conditions, between federal law enforcement agencies and financial institutions, as well as among financial institutions, for counter-terrorism purposes. Federal banking regulators are required, when reviewing bank holding company acquisition and bank merger applications, to take into account the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering activities of the applicants.

Pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, we, like all other financial institutions, are required to:

Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, our customers may also opt-out of certain information sharing between and among us and our affiliates. We are also subject, in connection with our lending and deposit-taking activities, to numerous federal and state laws aimed at protecting consumers, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the Expedited Funds Availability Act.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposed new or revised corporate governance, accounting, and reporting requirements on us. In addition to a requirement that chief executive officers and chief financial officers certify financial statements in writing, the statute imposed requirements affecting, among other matters, the composition and activities of audit committees, disclosures relating to corporate insiders and insider transactions, code of ethics, and the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting.

In 2008, we sold TARP Capital and a warrant to purchase shares of common stock to the Treasury pursuant to the CPP under TARP. We repurchased the TARP Capital in the 2010 fourth quarter and our warrant in the 2011 first quarter.

On December 19, 2010, we sold $920.0 million of our common stock and $300.0 million of subordinated debt in public offerings. On December 22, 2010, these proceeds, along with other available funds, were used to complete the repurchase of $1.4 billion of our TARP Capital. On January 19, 2011, we repurchased the warrant for our common stock associated with our participation in the TARP CPP for $49.1 million, or $2.08 for each of the 23.6 million common shares to which the Treasury was entitled. Prior to this repurchase, we were in compliance with all TARP standards, restrictions, and dividend payment limitations. Because of the repurchase of our TARP Capital, we are no longer subject to the TARP-related restrictions on dividends, stock repurchases, or executive compensation.

Available Information

This information may be read and copied at the Public Reference Room of the SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You can obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet web site that contains reports, proxy statements, and other information about issuers, like us, who file electronically with the SEC. The address of the site is http://www.sec.gov. The reports and other information filed by us with the SEC are also available at our Internet web site. The address of the site is http://www.huntington.com. Except as specifically incorporated by reference

11

Table of Contents

into this Annual Report on Form 10-K, information on those web sites is not part of this report. You also should be able to inspect reports, proxy statements, and other information about us at the offices of the NASDAQ National Market at 33 Whitehall Street, New York, New York.

Risk Governance

We use a multi-faceted approach to risk governance. It begins with the board of directors defining our risk appetite in aggregate as moderate-to-low. This does not preclude engagement in higher risk activities when we have the demonstrated expertise and control mechanisms to selectively manage higher risk. Rather, the definition is intended to represent a directional average of where we want our overall risk to be managed.

Two board committees oversee implementation of this desired risk profile: The Audit Committee and the Risk Oversight Committee.

Both committees are comprised of independent directors and routinely hold executive sessions with our key officers engaged in accounting and risk management.

On a periodic basis, the two committees meet in joint session to cover matters relevant to both such as the construct and appropriateness of the ACL, which is reviewed quarterly.

We maintain a philosophy that each colleague is responsible for risk. This is manifested by the design of a risk management organization that places emphasis on risk-ownership by risk-takers. We believe that by placing ownership of risk within its related business segment, attention to, and accountability for, risk is heightened.

Further, through its Compensation Committee, the board of directors seeks to ensure its system of rewards is risk-sensitive and aligns the interests of management, creditors, and shareholders. We utilize a variety of compensation-related tools to induce appropriate behavior, including common stock ownership thresholds for the chief executive officer and certain members of senior management, a requirement to hold until retirement a portion of net shares received upon exercise of stock options or release of restricted stock awards (50% for executive officers and 25% for other aware recipients), equity deferrals, holdbacks, clawback provisions, and the right to terminate compensation plans at any time when undesirable outcomes may result.

Management has introduced a number of steps to help ensure an aggregate moderate-to-low risk appetite is maintained. Foremost is a quarterly, comprehensive self-assessment process in which each business segment produces an analysis of its risks and the strength of its risk controls. The segment analyses are combined with assessments by our risk management organization of major risk sectors (e.g., credit, market, operational, reputational, compliance, etc.) to produce an overall enterprise risk assessment. Outcomes of the process include a determination of the quality of the overall control process, the direction of risk, and our position compared to the defined risk appetite.

12

Table of Contents

Management also utilizes a wide series of metrics (key risk indicators) to monitor risk positions throughout the Company. In general, a range for each metric is established that identifies a moderate-to-low position. Deviations from the range will indicate if the risk being measured is moving into a high position, which may then necessitate corrective action.

In 2010, we enhanced our process of risk-based capital attribution. Our economic capital model was upgraded and integrated into a more robust system of stress testing in 2011. We believe this tool has further enhanced our ability to manage to the defined risk appetite. Our board level Capital Planning Committee will monitor and react to output from the integrated modeling process.

We also have three other executive level committees to manage risk: ALCO, Credit Policy and Strategy, and Risk Management. Each committee focuses on specific categories of risk and is supported by a series of subcommittees that are tactical in nature. We believe this structure helps ensure appropriate elevation of issues and overall communication of strategies.

Huntington utilizes three levels of defense with regard to risk management: (1) business segments, (2) corporate risk management, (3) internal audit and credit review. To induce greater ownership of risk within its business segments, segment risk officers have been embedded to identify and monitor risk, elevate and remediate issues, establish controls, perform self-testing, and oversee the quarterly self-assessment process. Segment risk officers report directly to the related segment manager with a dotted line to the Chief Risk Officer. Corporate Risk Management establishes policies, sets operating limits, reviews new or modified products/processes, ensures consistency and quality assurance within the segments, and produces the enterprise risk assessment. The Chief Risk Officer has significant input into the design and outcome of incentive compensation plans as they apply to risk. Internal Audit and Credit Review provide additional assurance that risk-related functions are operating as intended.

Huntington believes it has provided a sound risk governance foundation to support the Bank. Our process will be subject to continuous improvement and enhancement. Our objective is to have strong risk management practices and capabilities.

Risk Overview

We, like other financial companies, are subject to a number of risks that may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operation, many of which are outside of our direct control, though efforts are made to manage those risks while optimizing returns. Among the risks assumed are: (1) credit risk, which is the risk of loss due to loan and lease customers or other counterparties not being able to meet their financial obligations under agreed upon terms, (2) market risk, which is the risk of loss due to changes in the market value of assets and liabilities due to changes in market interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equity prices, and credit spreads, (3) liquidity risk, which is (a) the risk of loss due to the possibility that funds may not be available to satisfy current or future commitments based on external macro market issues, investor and customer perception of financial strength, and events unrelated to us such as war, terrorism, or financial institution market specific issues, and (b) the risk of loss based on our ability to satisfy current or future funding commitments due to the mix and maturity structure of our balance sheet, amount of on-hand cash and unencumbered securities and the availability of contingent sources of funding, (4) operational risk, which is the risk of loss due to human error, inadequate or failed internal systems and controls, violations of, or noncompliance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices, or ethical standards, and external influences such as market conditions, fraudulent activities, disasters, and security risks, and (5) compliance risk, which exposes us to money penalties, enforcement actions or other sanctions as a result of nonconformance with laws, rules, and regulations that apply to the financial services industry.

We also expend considerable effort to contain risk which emanates from execution of our business strategies and work relentlessly to protect the Company’s reputation. Strategic and reputational risks do not easily lend themselves to traditional methods of measurement. Rather, we closely monitor them through processes such as

13

Table of Contents

new product / initiative reviews, frequent financial performance reviews, employee and client surveys, monitoring market intelligence, periodic discussions between management and our board, and other such efforts.

In addition to the other information included or incorporated by reference into this report, readers should carefully consider that the following important factors, among others, could negatively impact our business, future results of operations, and future cash flows materially.

Credit Risks:

Our business depends on the creditworthiness of our customers. Our ACL of $1.0 billion at December 31, 2011, represented Management’s estimate of probable losses inherent in our loan and lease portfolio as well as our unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit. We periodically review our ACL for appropriateness. In doing so, we consider economic conditions and trends, collateral values, and credit quality indicators, such as past charge-off experience, levels of past due loans, and NPAs. There is no certainty that our ACL will be appropriate over time to cover losses in the portfolio because of unanticipated adverse changes in the economy, market conditions, or events adversely affecting specific customers, industries, or markets. If the credit quality of our customer base materially decreases, if the risk profile of a market, industry, or group of customers changes materially, or if the ACL is not appropriate, our net income and capital could be materially adversely affected which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, bank regulators periodically review our ACL and may require us to increase our provision for loan and lease losses or loan charge-offs. Any increase in our ACL or loan charge-offs as required by these regulatory authorities could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our performance could be negatively affected to the extent that further weaknesses in business and economic conditions have direct or indirect material adverse impacts on us, our customers, and our counterparties. These conditions could result in one or more of the following:

An increase in the number of delinquencies, bankruptcies, or defaults could result in a higher level of NPAs, NCOs, provision for credit losses, and valuation adjustments on loans held for sale. The markets we serve are dependent on industrial and manufacturing businesses and thus are particularly vulnerable to adverse changes in economic conditions affecting these sectors.

Like all financial institutions, we are subject to the effects of any economic downturn. There has been a slowdown in the housing market across our geographic footprint, reflecting declining prices and excess inventories of houses to be sold. These developments have had, and further declines may continue to have, a negative effect on our financial conditions and results of operations. At December 31, 2011, we had:

14

Table of Contents

Because of the decline in home values, some of our borrowers have mortgages that exceed the value of their homes. The decline in home values, coupled with the weakened economy, has increased short sales and foreclosures. The reduced levels of home sales have had a materially adverse effect on the prices achieved on the sale of foreclosed properties. Continued decline in home values may escalate these problems resulting in higher delinquencies, greater charge-offs, and increased losses on the sale of foreclosed real estate in future periods.

Market Risks:

Our results of operations depend substantially on net interest income, which is the difference between interest earned on interest earning assets (such as investments and loans) and interest paid on interest bearing liabilities (such as deposits and borrowings). Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies and domestic and international economic and political conditions. Conditions such as inflation, deflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, and other factors beyond our control may also affect interest rates. If our interest earning assets mature or reprice faster than interest bearing liabilities in a declining interest rate environment, net interest income could be materially adversely impacted. Likewise, if interest bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly than interest earning assets in a rising interest rate environment, net interest income could be adversely impacted.

At December 31, 2011, $2.8 billion, or 14%, of our commercial loan portfolio, and $2.6 billion, or 50%, of our residential mortgage portfolio, as measured by the aggregate outstanding principal balances, was fixed-rate loans and the remainder was adjustable-rate loans. As interest rates rise, the payment by the borrower on adjustable-rate loans increases to the extent permitted by the terms of the loan, and the higher payment increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of the underlying property may be adversely affected by higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on fixed-rate loans, as borrowers refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities, assets under management, and other assets, including mortgage and nonmortgage servicing rights. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans and leases may lead to an increase in NPAs and a reduction of income recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. When we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. Subsequently, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of NPAs would decrease net interest income. In addition, transactional income, including trust income, brokerage income, and gain on sales of loans can vary significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year based on a number of different factors, including the interest rate environment.

Rising interest rates reduces the value of our fixed-rate debt securities and cash flow hedging derivatives portfolio. The unrealized losses resulting from holding such securities and financial instruments are recognized in OCI and reduce total shareholders’ equity. Unrealized losses do not negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios; however Tangible Common Equity and the associated ratios are reduced. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and reduce Tier I and Total Risk-based Capital regulatory ratios. If cash flow hedging derivatives are terminated, the impact is reflected in earnings over the life

15

Table of Contents

of the instrument and reduces Tier I and Total Risk-based Capital regulatory ratios. Somewhat offsetting these negative impacts to OCI in a rising interest rate environment, is a decrease in pension and other post-retirement obligations.

If short-term interest rates remain at their historically low levels for a prolonged period, and assuming longer term interest rates fall further, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem. This could have a material adverse effect on our net interest income and our results of operations.

Liquidity Risks:

Liquidity is the ability to meet cash flow needs on a timely basis at a reasonable cost. The liquidity of the Bank is used to make loans and leases and to repay deposit liabilities as they become due or are demanded by customers. Liquidity policies and limits are established by our board of directors, with operating limits set by Management. Wholesale funding sources include federal funds purchased; securities sold under repurchase agreements, noncore deposits, and medium- and long-term debt, which includes a domestic bank note program and a Euronote program. The Bank is also a member of the FHLB, which provides funding through advances to members that are collateralized with mortgage-related assets.

We maintain a portfolio of securities that can be used as a secondary source of liquidity. There are other sources of liquidity available to us should they be needed. These sources include the sale or securitization of loans, the ability to acquire additional national market noncore deposits, issuance of additional collateralized borrowings such as FHLB advances, the issuance of debt securities, and the issuance of preferred or common securities in public or private transactions. The Bank also can borrow from the Federal Reserve’s discount window.

Starting in mid-2007, significant turmoil and volatility in worldwide financial markets increased, though current volatility has declined. Such disruptions in the liquidity of financial markets directly impact us to the extent we need to access capital markets to raise funds to support our business and overall liquidity position. This situation could adversely affect the cost of such funds or our ability to raise such funds. If we were unable to access any of these funding sources when needed, we might be unable to meet customers’ needs, which could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and level of regulatory-qualifying capital. We may, from time to time, consider opportunistically retiring our outstanding securities in privately negotiated or open market transactions for cash or common shares. This could adversely affect our liquidity position.

Dividends from the Bank to the parent company are the primary source of funds for the payment of dividends to our shareholders. Under applicable statutes and regulations, a national bank may not declare and pay dividends in any year greater than its undivided profits or in excess of an amount equal to the sum of the total of the net income of the bank for that year and the retained net income of the bank for the preceding two years, minus the sum of any transfers required by the OCC and any transfers required to be made to a fund for the retirement of any preferred stock, unless the OCC approves the declaration and payment of dividends in excess of such amount. Due to the losses that the Bank incurred in 2008 and 2009, at December 31, 2011, the Bank and its subsidiaries could not declare and pay dividends to the parent company, any subsidiary of the parent company

16

Table of Contents

outside the Bank’s consolidated group, or any security holder outside the Bank’s consolidated group, without regulatory approval. Since the first quarter of 2008, the Bank has requested and received OCC approval each quarter to pay periodic dividends to shareholders outside the Bank’s consolidated group on the preferred and common stock of its REIT and capital financing subsidiaries to the extent necessary to maintain their REIT status. A wholly-owned nonbank subsidiary of the parent company owns a portion of the preferred shares of the REIT and capital financing subsidiaries. Outside of the REIT and capital financing subsidiary dividends, we do not anticipate that the Bank will declare dividends during 2012.

Certain European Union member countries have fiscal obligations greater than their fiscal revenue, which has caused investor concern over such country’s ability to continue to service their debt and foster economic growth. Currently, the European debt crisis has caused credit spreads to widen in the fixed income debt markets, and liquidity to be less abundant. A weaker European economy may transcend Europe, cause investors to lose confidence in the safety and soundness of European financial institutions and the stability of European member economies, and likewise negatively affect U.S.-based financial institutions, the stability of the global financial markets, and the economic recovery underway in the United States.

Should the U.S. economic recovery be adversely impacted by these factors, loan and asset growth at U.S. financial institutions could be negatively affected. A return of the volatile economic conditions experienced in the U.S. during 2008-2009, including the adverse conditions in the fixed income debt markets, for an extended period of time, particularly if left unmitigated by European Union monetary policy measures, may have a material adverse indirect effect on us. (For further discussion, see the European Sovereign Debt and Counterparty Exposure section within Credit Risk.)

Operational Risks:

We face legal risks in our businesses, and the volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against financial institutions remain high. Substantial legal liability against us could have material adverse financial effects or cause significant reputational harm to us, which in turn could seriously harm our business prospects. It is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations for a particular reporting period. (For further discussion, see Note 22 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)

We are exposed to many types of operational risks, including reputational risk, legal and compliance risk, cyber-attack risk, the risk of fraud or theft by employees or outsiders, unauthorized transactions by employees or outsiders, or operational errors by employees, including clerical or record-keeping errors or those resulting from faulty or disabled computer or telecommunications systems. These operational risks could lead to expensive litigation and loss of confidence by our customers, regulators, and the capital markets.

Moreover, negative public opinion can result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending practices, corporate governance, and acquisitions and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative public opinion can adversely affect our ability to attract and retain customers and can also expose us to litigation and regulatory action. Relative to acquisitions, we cannot predict if, or when, we will be able to identify and attract acquisition

17

Table of Contents

candidates or make acquisitions on favorable terms. We incur risks and challenges associated with the integration of acquired institutions in a timely and efficient manner, and we cannot guarantee that we will be successful in retaining existing customer relationships or achieving anticipated operating efficiencies.

Huntington is under continuous threat of loss due to cyber-attacks especially as we continue to expand customer capabilities to utilize internet and other remote channels to transact business. Two of the most significant cyber–attack risks that we face are e-fraud and loss of sensitive customer data. Loss from e-fraud occurs when cybercriminals breach and extract funds directly from customer or our accounts. The attempts to breach sensitive customer data, such as account numbers and social security numbers, are less frequent but could present significant reputational, legal and/or regulatory costs to us if successful. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened because of the evolving nature and complexity of these threats from cybercriminals and hackers, our plans to continue to provide internet banking and mobile banking channels, and our plans to develop additional remote connectivity solutions to serve our customers.

The calculation of our provision for federal income taxes is complex and requires the use of estimates and judgments. In the ordinary course of business, we operate in various taxing jurisdictions and are subject to income and nonincome taxes. The effective tax rate is based in part on our interpretation of the relevant current tax laws. From time-to-time, we engage in business transactions that may have an effect on our tax liabilities.

During 2011, we entered into discussions with the Appeals Division of the IRS. It is possible that the ultimate resolution of the proposed adjustments, if unfavorable, may result in penalties and interest. Such adjustments, including any penalties and interest, may be material to our results of operations in the period such adjustments occur and increase our effective tax rate. In the third quarter 2011, the IRS began its examination of our 2008 and 2009 consolidated federal income tax returns. Various state and other jurisdictions remain open to examination, including Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Illinois. (For further discussion, see Note 17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. As a financial holding company, we are subject to regulation that focuses on effective internal controls and procedures. Such controls and procedures are modified, supplemented, and changed from time-to-time as necessitated by our growth and in reaction to external events and developments. Any failure to maintain, in the future, an effective internal control environment could impact our ability to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis, which could result in regulatory actions, loss of investor confidence, and adversely impact our business and stock price.

Compliance Risks:

Federal banking regulators continually monitor the capital position of banks and bank holding companies. In July 2009, the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision published a set of international guidelines for determining

18

Table of Contents

regulatory capital known as Basel III. These guidelines, finalized in December 2010, followed earlier guidelines by the Basel Committee and are designed to address many of the weaknesses identified in the banking sector as contributing to the financial crisis of 2008 — 2010 by, among other things, increasing minimum capital requirements, increasing the quality of capital, increasing the risk coverage of the capital framework, and increasing standards for the supervisory review process and public disclosure.

In 2011, the Federal Reserve issued guidelines for evaluating proposals by certain bank holding companies, including Huntington, to undertake capital actions in 2012, such as increasing dividend payments or repurchasing or redeeming stock. This process is known as the Federal Reserve’s Capital Plan Review. Pursuant to those Federal Reserve guidelines, Huntington submitted its proposed capital plan to the Federal Reserve in January 2012. The Federal Reserve is expected to undertake these capital plan reviews on a regular basis in the future. There can be no assurance that the Federal Reserve will respond favorably to our capital plan as part of their current Capital Plan Review, or future capital plan reviews, and the Federal Reserve or other regulatory capital requirements may limit or otherwise restrict how we utilize our capital, including common stock dividends and stock repurchases. Although not currently anticipated, our regulators may require us to raise additional capital in the future. Issuing additional common stock may dilute existing stockholders.

The Federal Reserve has issued a proposed rule that, in addition to the broader Basel III capital reforms, will implement the application of the Federal Reserve’s capital plan rule, including the requirement to maintain capital above 5% Tier 1 Common risk-based capital ratio under both expected and stressed conditions.

We are subject to the supervision and regulation of various state and Federal regulators, including the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, SEC, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and various state regulatory agencies. As such, we are subject to a wide variety of laws and regulations, many of which are discussed in the Regulatory Matters section. As part of their supervisory process, which includes periodic examinations and continuous monitoring, the regulators have the authority to impose restrictions or conditions on our activities and the manner in which we manage the organization. Such actions could negatively impact us in a variety of ways, including monetary fines, impacting our ability to pay dividends, precluding mergers or acquisitions, limiting our ability to offer certain products or services, or imposing additional capital requirements.

The U.S. Government has intervened on an unprecedented scale, responding to what has been commonly referred to as the financial crisis. In addition to the previously enacted governmental assistance programs designed to stabilize and stimulate the U.S. economy, recent market conditions have led to numerous programs and proposals to reform the financial regulatory system and prevent future crises, including the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Dodd-Frank Act represents a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the United States, establishes the new federal CFPB, and requires the bureau and other federal agencies to implement many new and significant rules and regulations. At this time, it is difficult to predict the extent to which the Dodd-Frank Act, or the resulting rules and regulations in their entirety, will impact our business. Compliance with these new laws and regulations may result in additional costs, which could be significant, and may have a material and adverse effect on our results of operations.

19

Table of Contents

In addition, international banking industry regulators have largely agreed upon significant changes in the regulation of capital required to be held by banks and their holding companies to support their businesses. The new capital rules have yet to be finalized by the banking regulators, but generally are expected to increase the capital required to be held, narrow the types of instruments which will qualify as providing appropriate capital, and impose a new liquidity measurement. The capital requirements are complex and will be phased in over many years. Any permanent significant increase in our cost of capital could have significant adverse impacts on the profitability of many of our products, the types of products we could offer profitably, our overall profitability, and our overall growth opportunities, among other things. Other potential effects could include impacting our ability to pay cash dividends and repurchase our common shares, higher dilution of common shareholders, and a higher risk that we might fall below regulatory capital thresholds in an adverse economic cycle.

None.

Our headquarters, as well as the Bank’s, are located in the Huntington Center, a thirty-seven-story office building located in Columbus, Ohio. Of the building’s total office space available, we lease approximately 33%. The lease term expires in 2030, with six five-year renewal options for up to 30 years but with no purchase option. The Bank has an indirect minority equity interest of 18.4% in the building.

Our other major properties consist of the following:

In 1998, we entered into a sale/leaseback agreement that included the sale of 59 of our locations. The transaction included a mix of branch banking offices, regional offices, and operational facilities, including certain properties described above, which we will continue to operate under a long-term lease.

Information required by this item is set forth in Note 22 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and incorporated into this Item by reference.

Not applicable.

20

Table of Contents

PART II

The common stock of Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol “HBAN”. The stock is listed as “HuntgBcshr” or “HuntBanc” in most newspapers. As of January 31, 2012, we had 37,109 shareholders of record.

Information regarding the high and low sale prices of our common stock and cash dividends declared on such shares, as required by this item, is set forth in Table 51 entitled Selected Quarterly Income Statement Data and incorporated into this Item by reference. Information regarding restrictions on dividends, as required by this Item, is set forth in Item 1 Business-Regulatory Matters and in Note 23 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and incorporated into this Item by reference.

Huntington did not repurchase any common shares for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The line graph below compares the yearly percentage change in cumulative total shareholder return on Huntington common stock and the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index and the KBW Bank Index for the period December 31, 2006, through December 31, 2011. The KBW Bank Index is a market capitalization-weighted bank stock index published by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. The index is composed of the largest banking companies and includes all money center banks and regional banks, including Huntington. An investment of $100 on December 31, 2006, and the reinvestment of all dividends are assumed.

21

Table of Contents

Table 1 — Selected Financial Data (1), (9)

N.R. — Not relevant, as denominator of calculation is a loss in prior period compared with income in current period.

22

Table of Contents

23

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

We are a multi-state diversified regional bank holding company organized under Maryland law in 1966 and headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Through the Bank, we have 146 years of servicing the financial needs of our customers. Through our subsidiaries, we provide full-service commercial and consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust services, brokerage services, customized insurance service programs, and other financial products and services. Our over 600 banking offices are located in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Selected financial service and other activities are also conducted in various states throughout the United States. International banking services are available through the headquarters office in Columbus, Ohio, and a limited purpose office located in the Cayman Islands and another limited purpose office located in Hong Kong.

The following MD&A provides information we believe necessary for understanding our financial condition, changes in financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. The MD&A should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, and other information contained in this report.

Our discussion is divided into key segments:

A reading of each section is important to understand fully the nature of our financial performance and prospects.

24

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW

2011 Financial Performance Review

In 2011, we reported net income of $542.6 million, or $0.59 per common share, up $230.3 million from 2010 (see Table 2). The primary driver of the increase was improved credit quality during 2011, which resulted in a decline in provision for credit losses by $460.5 million, or 73%, when compared to 2010. This benefit to net income was offset somewhat by a decline in noninterest income of 6% and an increase in noninterest expense of 3%. Despite the challenging economic and extended low interest rate environment coupled with impacts of government-mandated reductions in fee income during 2011, and a slower mortgage market, we were able to produce a return on average total assets of 1.01%, up from 0.59% in 2010. We also saw continuing results from our strategic business investments and Optimal Customer Relationship (OCR) sales approach. (Also, see Significant Items Influencing Financial Performance Comparisons within the Discussion of Results of Operations.)

Fully-taxable equivalent net interest income was $1.6 billion in 2011, up slightly from 2010. Average earning assets increased $1.2 billion, or 2%, including a $1.6 billion, or 4% increase in total loans and leases. This reflected benefits from our strategic C&I initiatives focusing on large corporate, asset based lending, and equipment finance. It also reflected growth in the automobile portfolio. These increases were partially offset by a decline in our CRE portfolio, reflecting the continued execution of our plan to reduce total CRE exposure, primarily in the noncore portfolio. Average core deposits grew $1.9 billion, or 5%, reflecting our consumer household and commercial relationship growth. This growth continued even as we continued to focus on fundamentally changing our deposit mix and driving down the overall cost of funds. The net interest margin declined 6 basis points to 3.38% from 3.44%. The decline reflected lower loan and securities yields due to the extended low interest rate environment, partially offset by the positive impacts of growth in low cost deposits and lower deposit pricing.

Noninterest income was $1.0 billion in 2011, a 6% decrease compared with 2010. We experienced growth in certain fee businesses during the year including capital markets fees and brokerage income. We also had a gain on sale of loans from our 2011 third quarter automobile securitization. These increases were offset by declines in mortgage banking income, as originations decreased 28% from the prior year. Additionally, we experienced declines in service charges on deposit accounts, reflecting our implementation of changes to Regulation E and our “Fair Play” banking philosophy which were somewhat offset by activity growth due to a 10% increase in consumer households during 2011.

Noninterest expense was $1.7 billion in 2011, a 3% increase compared with 2010. This reflected increases in personnel costs, expenses associated with the conversion to a new debit card processor, and the costs related to implementation of strategic initiatives. These increases were partially offset by declines in OREO and foreclosure expenses, as credit quality continued to improve, as well as lower professional services costs.

Credit quality performance continued to show strong improvement as our NALs and NCOs declined and reserve coverage increased. Compared with the prior year, NALs declined 30%. NCOs were $437.1 million, or an annualized 1.12% of average total loans and leases, down from $874.5 million, or an annualized 2.35% in 2010. While the ACL as a percentage of loans and leases was 2.60%, down from 3.39% at December 31, 2010, it is near peer averages and our ACL as a percentage of total NALs increased to 187% from 166%. The level of Criticized commercial loans also declined $0.9 billion, or 30%, from last year. The provision for credit losses declined $460.5 million, or 73%, from 2010.

At December 31, 2011, our regulatory Tier 1 and Total risk-based capital were $2.8 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively, above the well-capitalized regulatory thresholds. Our tangible common equity ratio improved 74 basis points to 8.30% and our Tier 1 common risk-based capital ratio improved 71 basis points to 10.00% from December 31, 2010. During the 2011 fourth quarter, we replaced a portion of our trust preferred securities with preferred stock, which we believe will qualify as additional Tier 1 risk-based capital under regulations arising from the Dodd-Frank Act.

25

Table of Contents

Business Overview

General

Our general business objectives are: (1) grow net interest income and fee income, (2) increase cross-sell and share-of-wallet across all business segments, (3) improve efficiency ratio, and (4) continue to strengthen risk management, including sustained improvement in credit metrics.

The main challenges to accomplishing our primary objectives in 2011 resulted from: (1) an economy that, while more stable than a year earlier, remained fragile, (2) a prolonged low interest rate environment, which put pressure on our net interest margin, (3) lost fee income due to new regulations, and (4) more overhead and expenses related to increased risk management as a consequence of the Dodd-Frank Act. As is the nature of a mature industry with arguably overcapacity, we faced strong competition from other banks and financial service firms in our markets. This is expected to continue. To address these challenges, beginning in the second half of 2009 and continuing today, we place strategic emphasis on developing and expanding resources to improve cross-sell performance within our consumer and business customer bases. In this regard, our OCR methodology continued to deliver strong success in 2011. On the consumer side, consumer checking account households grew 10.3%, which was more than 50% higher than in 2010, and nearly four times the rate of growth in 2009. Our cross-sell performance also continued to improve. At the end of the year, 73.5% of our consumer checking account households utilized over four products. This compared with 69.4% a year earlier. Growth in commercial relationships was 8.4% in 2011. At the end of the year, 31.4% of our commercial relationships used over four products or services, up from 24.2% a year earlier. Our “Fair Play” philosophy, coupled with an increasingly effective OCR focus, while positively impacting 2011 results, also positions us for better long-term performance.

Economy

During 2011, there continued to be a high level of uncertainty and volatility surrounding the economy, though late in the year we saw more encouraging signs. Unemployment rates as of December 2011 for Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia were below the national unemployment average. Indiana, Michigan, and Kentucky were slightly above the national average, but they also declined, and the rate in Michigan was the lowest since September 2008. Midwest housing prices generally did not rise as much during the housing boom years, and have therefore not gone down as much during the housing crisis. Midwest housing markets are expected to continue to reflect the general state of the labor markets, which are expected to continue to improve.

Manufacturing exports are a regional strength. Michigan and Ohio are two of the top 10 states for manufacturing exports, and Indiana is number 11. For Michigan in particular, the future success of export growth will likely hold a key to long-term economic growth.

Both office and industrial vacancy rates have been easing downward, but have remained generally high relative to the national average. Therefore, stresses in these loan classes will likely persist. However, vacancy rates should continue to ease downward assuming an economic recovery and expansionary phase in 2012. However, issues may exist in markets with especially high vacancy rates.

Legislative and Regulatory

Regulatory reforms continued to be adopted which impose additional restrictions on business practices. Recent actions affecting us included the Federal Reserve’s capital plan review and maturity extension program, and other rules and regulations that have been issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.

Capital Plan Review — We are participating in the Federal Reserve’s Capital Plan Review (CapPR) stress test process and made our capital plan submission in January 2012. The Federal Reserve will evaluate our capital plan based on our risk profile and the strength of our internal capital assessment process under regulatory capital standards currently applicable and in accordance with our plans to address proposed revisions to the regulatory capital framework as set forth in Basel III and relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Federal Reserve’s evaluation will take into consideration any capital distribution plans, such as plans to increase common stock

26

Table of Contents

dividends or to reinstate common stock repurchase programs. We expect to receive the results of their evaluation by the end of the 2012 first quarter. While we can give no assurances as to the outcome or specific interactions with the regulators, we believe we have a strong capital position.

Federal Reserve Maturity Extension Program — Under the maturity extension program (“Operation Twist”) announced on September 21, 2011, the Federal Reserve noted its intention to sell $400 billion of shorter-term Treasury securities by the end of 2012 and use the proceeds to buy longer-term securities. This will extend the average maturity of the securities in the Federal Reserve’s portfolio. By reducing the supply of longer-term securities in the market, it is the FOMC’s intention to put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, including rates on financial assets that investors consider to be close substitutes for longer-term Treasury securities. Further, it is their objective that the reduction in longer-term interest rates, in turn, will contribute to a broad easing in financial market conditions that will provide additional stimulus to support the economic recovery. We do not anticipate that this program will have a material impact on our current securities portfolio or future investment strategy. However, it could cause our net interest margin to decline modestly. For further discussion, see the Market Risk section of our MD&A.

Durbin Amendment — The Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act instructed the Federal Reserve to review and establish the rate merchants pay banks for electronic clearing of debit card transactions (i.e., the interchange rate). As part of its review, the Federal Reserve’s objective was to establish standards for assessing debit card interchange fees receivable by debit card issuers that are reasonable and proportional to the costs incurred by the issuers for electronic debit transactions. During 2011, the Federal Reserve issued its final rule establishing standards for debit card interchange fees and prohibiting network exclusivity arrangements and routing restrictions. Under the final rule, the maximum permissible interchange fee that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction, a 1 cent fraud prevention adjustment, and 5 basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. This provision regarding debit card interchange fees became effective on October 1, 2011. As a result of implementing this lower debit card interchange fee structure, our 2011 fourth quarter electronic banking income declined $17.3 million from the 2011 third quarter.

Resolution Plan — The Federal Reserve and FDIC issued final regulations as required by section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act regarding resolution plans, also referred to as “living wills.” Insured depository institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets must submit to the FDIC a plan whereby the institution can be resolved by the FDIC, in the event of failure, in a manner that ensures depositors will receive access to insured funds within the required timeframes and generally ensures an orderly liquidation of the institution. Additionally, bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a plan that, in the event of material financial distress or failure, establishes the rapid and orderly liquidation of the company under the bankruptcy code and in a way that would not pose systemic risk to the financial system of the United States. The regulations allow for a tiered approach for complying with the requirements based on materiality of the institution. Currently, we are required to submit resolution plans as prescribed by December 31, 2013.

Recent Industry Developments

Recent industry events and related supervisory guidance brought about by the continued weak housing market have caused us to evaluate certain aspects of our mortgage operations, including a review of our MSR valuation.

Mortgage Servicing Rights — MSR fair values are estimated based on residential mortgage servicing revenue in excess of estimated market costs to service the underlying loans. Historically, the estimated market cost to service has been stable. Due to changes in the regulatory environment related to loan servicing and foreclosure activities since 2008 in reaction to the housing crises, costs to service mortgages are likely to increase, though the potential impact on the market costs to service remains uncertain. Certain large residential mortgage loan servicers entered into consent orders with banking regulators in April 2011, which require the

27

Table of Contents

servicers to remedy deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices and to enhance residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure processes. It is unclear what impact this may ultimately have on market costs to service.

2012 Expectations

As we have done since early 2010, we will continue to execute our core strategy, making selective investments in initiatives to grow long-term profitability. We will remain disciplined in our growth and pricing of loans and deposits and are encouraged by the net interest margin expansion during the 2011 fourth quarter. We continue to expect credit quality to improve. We will stay focused on increasing customer cross-sell, and work to improve operating efficiency. While there continues to be a high level of uncertainty and volatility surrounding the economy, late in the year we saw more encouraging signs.

Over the course of 2012, net interest income is expected to show modest improvement from the 2011 fourth quarter level. The momentum we are seeing in total loan and low-cost deposit growth is expected to continue. Earlier in 2012, those benefits are expected to be mostly offset by downward pressure on the net interest margin due to the anticipated continued mix shift to lower-rate, higher quality loans and lower securities reinvestment rates given the low absolute level of interest rates and shape of the yield curve. Our C&I portfolio is expected to continue to show meaningful growth with much of this reflecting the positive impact from strategic initiatives to expand our commercial lending expertise into areas like specialty banking, asset based lending, and equipment financing, in addition to our long-standing continued support of middle market and small business lending. For automobile loans, we will continue to evaluate the use of automobile loan securitizations to limit total on-balance sheet exposure as we expect to see continued strong levels of originations. On December 31, 2011, we transferred $1.3 billion of automobile loans to loans held for sale, as we plan to complete another securitization during the first half of 2012. Residential mortgages and home equity loans are expected to show modest growth, with CRE likely to experience slowing declines.

We anticipate the increase in total loans to modestly outpace growth in total deposits, reflecting a heightened focus on our overall cost of funding and the continued shift towards low- and no-cost demand deposits and money market deposit accounts.

Noninterest income is expected to show a modest increase throughout 2012 from 2011 fourth quarter levels. This is primarily due to anticipated growth in new customers and increased contribution from key fee income activities including capital markets, treasury management services, and brokerage, reflecting the impact of our cross-sell and product penetration initiatives throughout the company.

We anticipate making progress on improving our operating efficiency ratio; though this will likely reflect the benefit of revenue growth as we expect expenses could increase. While we will continue our focus on improving operating efficiencies, improvement could be offset by additional regulatory costs and expenses associated with strategic actions, such as in-store branch partnerships and the consolidation of certain traditional branches.

Nonaccrual loans and net charge-offs are expected to continue to decline. The level of provision for credit losses is currently in line with our long-term expectations. However, there could be some quarterly volatility given the absolute low level and the uncertain and uneven nature of the economic recovery.

We anticipate the effective 2012 tax rate to approximate 35% of income before income taxes, less approximately $65-$75 million of permanent tax differences primarily related to tax-exempt income, tax-advantaged investments, and general business credits.

28

Table of Contents

Table 2 — Selected Annual Income Statements (1)