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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section�13 or 15(d) of the Act. o Yes � 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. � Yes o 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). � Yes o 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. �

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 the definitions of �large accelerated filer,� �accelerated filer� and �smaller reporting company� in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

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

The aggregate market value of voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June�30, 2010, determined by using a per share closing price of $5.54, as quoted by NASDAQ on that date, was $3,857,539,827. As of January�31, 2011, there were 863,338,744�shares of common stock with a par value of $0.01 outstanding.

Part�III of this Form�10-K incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant�s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Shareholders� Meeting.

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

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. Through the Bank, we have 145�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, 2010, the Bank had 611 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.

In late 2010, we reorganized the way in which we manage our business. Our 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, customer service, and pricing of these products.

Beginning in 2010, a key strategic emphasis has been for our business segments to operate in cooperation to provide products and services to our customers to build stronger and more profitable relationships using our Optimal Customer Relationship (OCR) sales and service process. The objectives of OCR are to:

1.�Provide a consultative sales approach to provide solutions that are specific to each customer.

2.�Leverage each business segment in terms of its products and expertise to benefit the customer.

3.�Target prospects who may want to have their full relationship with us.

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

A Treasury�/�Other function includes our insurance brokerage business, which specializes in commercial property/casualty, employee benefits, personal lines, life and disability and specialty lines. We also provide brokerage and agency services for residential and commercial title insurance and excess and surplus product lines. 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.

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.

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, 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. In addition, our AFCRE segment faces competition from the financing divisions of automobile manufacturers.

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 under our Fair Play banking philosophy, such as our 24-Hour Grace tm account feature introduced in 2010, 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, 2010, in the top 12 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) in which we compete:

Source: FDIC.gov, based on June�30, 2010 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.

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.

Because we are a public company, we are also 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.

The Bank, which is chartered by the OCC, is a national bank, and our only bank subsidiary. In addition, we have numerous nonbank subsidiaries. Exhibit�21.1 of this Form�10-K lists all of our subsidiaries. The Bank is subject to examination and supervision by the OCC. Its domestic deposits are insured by the DIF of the FDIC, which also has certain regulatory and supervisory authority over it. 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.

In connection with EESA, we sold TARP Capital and a warrant to purchase shares of common stock to the Treasury pursuant to the CPP under TARP. As a result of our participation in TARP, we were subject to certain restrictions and direct oversight by the Treasury. Upon our repurchase of the TARP Capital on December�22, 2010, we are no longer subject to the TARP-related restrictions on dividends, stock repurchases, or executive compensation.

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, establishes the CFPB, which will have 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. While the overall impact cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, we believe we are likely to be negatively impacted by the Dodd-Frank Act primarily in the areas of capital requirements, restrictions on fees, and other charges to customers.

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.

Under changes made by 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 to commit resources to support each such subsidiary bank. Under current federal law, 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 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.

The Bank is subject to affiliate transaction restrictions under federal laws, 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 terms and under circumstances that are substantially the same as such transactions with unaffiliated entities.

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.

On October�3, 2008, EESA was enacted. EESA includes, among other provisions, TARP, under which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to purchase, insure, hold, and sell a wide variety of financial instruments, particularly those that were based on or related to residential or commercial mortgages originated or issued on or before March�14, 2008. Under TARP, the Treasury authorized a voluntary CPP to purchase up to $250�billion of senior preferred shares of stock from qualifying financial institutions that elected to participate.

On November�14, 2008, at the request of the Treasury and other regulators, we participated in the CPP by issuing to the Treasury, in exchange for $1.4�billion, 1.4�million shares of Huntington�s fixed-rate cumulative perpetual preferred stock, Series�B, par value $0.01 per share, with a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share (TARP Capital), and a ten-year warrant (Warrant), which was immediately exercisable, to purchase up to 23.6�million shares of Huntington�s common stock (approximately 3% of common shares outstanding at December�31, 2010), par value $0.01 per share, at an exercise price of $8.90 per share. The securities issued to the Treasury were accounted for as additions to our regulatory Tier�1 and Total capital. The proceeds were

used by the holding company to provide potential capital support for the Bank. This helped the Bank to continue its active lending programs for customers. This is evidenced by the increase in mortgage originations from $3.8�billion in 2008, to $5.3�billion in 2009, and $5.5�billion in 2010.

In connection with the issuance and sale of the TARP Capital to the Treasury, we agreed, among other things, to (1)�limit the payment of quarterly dividends on our common stock, (2)�limit our ability to repurchase our common stock or our outstanding serial preferred stock, (3)�grant the holders of the TARP Capital, the Warrant, and the common stock to be issued under the Warrant certain registration rights, and (4)�subject ourselves to the executive compensation limitations contained in EESA. These compensation limitations included (a)�prohibiting �golden parachute� payments, as defined in EESA, to senior executive officers; (b)�requiring recovery of any compensation paid to senior executive officers based on criteria that is later proven to be materially inaccurate; and (c)�prohibiting incentive compensation that encouraged unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution.

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 our $1.4�billion of 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.

EESA temporarily raised the limit on federal deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. This increase was made permanent in the Dodd-Frank Act. Separate from EESA, in October 2008, the FDIC also announced the TLGP to guarantee certain debt issued by FDIC-insured institutions.

On February�3, 2009, the Bank completed the issuance and sale of $600�million of Floating Rate Senior Bank Notes with a variable interest rate of three month LIBOR plus 40�basis points, due June�1, 2012 (the Notes). The Notes are guaranteed by the FDIC under the TLGP and are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The FDIC�s guarantee costs $20�million which is being amortized over the term of these notes.

Under TAGP, a component of the TLGP, the FDIC temporarily provided unlimited coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction deposit accounts. We voluntarily began participating in the TAGP in October of 2008, but opted out of the TAGP effective July�1, 2010. Subsequently, both the TLGP and TAGP were terminated in light of Section�343 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide unlimited deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts beginning December�31, 2010, for a two-year period with no opt out provisions.

The Federal Reserve has issued 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 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.

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, 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 ratio of 8%, with 4% being Tier�1 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.

Throughout 2010, 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 $1.5�billion of such brokered deposits at December�31, 2010.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, important changes will be implemented concerning the capital requirements for financial institutions. 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 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. We will be assessing the impact on us of these new regulations as they are proposed and implemented.

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 us without regulatory approval. The Bank may not, without prior regulatory approval, pay a dividend in an amount greater than its undivided profits. In addition, the prior approval of the OCC is required for the payment of a dividend by a national bank 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. As a result, for the year ended December�31, 2010, the Bank did not pay any cash dividends to us. At December�31, 2010, the Bank could not have declared and paid any dividends to the parent company 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 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 2011.

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.

In late 2008, under the assessment regime that was applicable prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC raised assessment rates for the first quarter of 2009 by a uniform 7�basis points of adjusted domestic deposits, resulting in a range between 12 and 50�basis points, depending upon the risk category. At the same time, the FDIC proposed further changes in the assessment system beginning in the second quarter of 2009. As amended in a final rule issued in March 2009, the changes, commencing April�1, 2009, set a five-year target of 1.15% for the designated reserve ratio, and set base assessment rates between 12 and 45�basis points of adjusted domestic deposits, depending on the risk category. In addition to these changes in the basic assessment regime, the FDIC, in an interim rule also issued in March 2009, imposed a 20�basis point emergency special assessment on deposits of insured institutions as of June�30, 2009, to be collected on September�30, 2009. In May 2009, the FDIC imposed a further special assessment on insured institutions of five basis points on their June�30, 2009 assets minus Tier�1 capital, also payable September�30, 2009. And in November 2009, the FDIC required all insured institutions to prepay, on December�30, 2009, slightly over three years of estimated insurance assessments.

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 now 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 maintained in connection with lawyers� trust accounts. On February�7, 2011, the FDIC adopted regulations effective for the 2011 second quarter assessment and payable in September 2011, which outline significant changes in the risk-based premiums approach for banks with over $10�billion of assets and creates 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 changes from deposits to an institution�s average total assets minus its average tangible equity. We are

currently evaluating the effect of these new regulations, but do not expect the 2011 FDIC assessment impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements to be materially higher than the prior period.

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 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 designates certain activities as financial in nature, including:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also authorizes 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.

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 leasing 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, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposed new or revised corporate governance, accounting, and reporting requirements on us and all other companies having securities registered with the SEC. 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 November 2009, the Federal Reserve Board amended Regulation�E of 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 the customer 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. Our strategy to comply with the Regulation�E Amendment is to alert our customers that we can no longer cover such overdrafts unless they opt-in to our overdraft service while disclosing the terms of our service and our fees for the service.

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 adequacy 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 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.

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 will be upgraded and integrated into a more robust system of stress testing in 2011. We believe this tool will further enhance 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.

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 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, (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 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.

Our business depends on the creditworthiness of our customers. Our ACL of $1.3�billion at December�31, 2010, represents 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 adequacy. 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 nonperforming assets. There is no certainty that our ACL will be adequate 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 adequate, our net income and capital could be materially adversely affected which, in turn, could have a material negative adverse affect 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 affect 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, 2010, we had:

Because of the decline in home values, some of our borrowers have mortgages greater than 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 affect 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.

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 more quickly 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, 2010, $2.6�billion, or 13%, of our commercial loan 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 rises to the extent permitted by the terms of the loan, and the increased 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 the loans underlying our participation interests as borrowers refinance their mortgages at lower interest rates.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities, and other assets, including mortgage and nonmortgage servicing rights and assets under management. Examples of transactional income include trust income, brokerage income, and gain on sales of loans. This type of income can vary significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year based on a number of different factors, including the interest rate environment. 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 have an adverse impact on net interest income.

Rising interest rates will result in a decline in value of our fixed-rate debt securities and cash flow hedging derivatives portfolio. The unrealized losses resulting from holding these securities and financial

instruments would be 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 would be reduced. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and will 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 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 would have a material adverse effect on our net interest income and our results of operations.

Continued volatility in the market value for these securities in our investment securities portfolio, whether caused by changes in market perceptions of credit risk, as reflected in the expected market yield of the security, or actual defaults in the portfolio, could result in significant fluctuations in the value of these securities. This could have a material adverse impact on our accumulated OCI and shareholders� equity depending on the direction of the fluctuations. Furthermore, future downgrades or defaults in these securities could result in future classifications as other-than-temporarily impaired and limit our ability to sell these securities at reasonable prices. This could have a material negative impact on our future earnings, although the impact on shareholders� equity would be offset by any amount already included in OCI for securities where we have recorded temporary impairment. At December�31, 2010, the fair value of these securities was $284.6�million.

We and the Bank are highly regulated, and we, as well as our regulators, continue to regularly perform a variety of capital analyses, including the preparation of stress case scenarios. As a result of those assessments, we could determine, or our regulators could require us, to raise additional capital in the future. Any such capital raise could include, among other things, the potential issuance of additional common equity to the public, or the additional conversions of our existing Series�A Preferred Stock to common equity. There could also be market perceptions that we need to raise additional capital, and regardless of the outcome of any stress test or other stress case analysis, such perceptions could have an adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

Furthermore, in order to improve our capital ratios above our already Well-capitalized levels, we can decrease the amount of our risk-weighted assets, increase capital, or a combination of both. If it is determined that additional capital is required in order to improve or maintain our capital ratios, we may accomplish this through the issuance of additional common stock.

The issuance of any additional shares of common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock or that represent the right to receive common stock, or the exercise of such securities, could be substantially dilutive to existing common shareholders. Shareholders of our common stock have no preemptive rights that entitle them to purchase their pro-rata share of any offering of shares of any class or series and, therefore, such sales or offerings could result in increased dilution to existing shareholders. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of shares of our common stock or securities convertible into, or exchangeable for, common stock in anticipation of such sales.

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 the middle of 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 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 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, 2010, the Bank and its subsidiaries could not declare and pay dividends to the parent company, any subsidiary of the parent company 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 2011.

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. As more fully described in Note�22 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, certain putative class actions and shareholder derivative actions were filed against us, certain affiliated committees, and/or certain of our current or former officers and directors. These cases allege violations of the securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and violations of Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) laws in connection with our acquisition of Sky Financial, the transactions between Franklin and us, and the financial and other disclosures related to these transactions. Although no assurance can be given, based on information currently available, consultation with counsel, and available insurance coverage, we believe that the eventual outcome of these claims against us will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, 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.

We are exposed to many types of operational risks, including reputational risk, legal and compliance 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. In addition, today�s threats to customer information and information systems are complex, more wide spread, continually emerging, and increasing at a rapid pace. Although we establish and maintain systems of internal operational controls that provide us with timely and accurate information about our level of operational risks, continue to invest in better tools and processes in all key areas, and monitor threats with increased rigor and focus, 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 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.

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. We believe the aggregate liabilities related to taxes are appropriately reflected in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

From time-to-time, we engage in business transactions that may have an effect on our tax liabilities. Where appropriate, we have obtained opinions of outside experts and have assessed the relative merits and risks of the appropriate tax treatment of business transactions taking into account statutory, judicial, and regulatory guidance in the context of the tax position.

We file income tax returns with the IRS and various state, city, and foreign jurisdictions. Federal income tax audits have been completed through 2007. In addition, various state and other jurisdictions remain open to examination, including Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Illinois.

The IRS and other taxing jurisdictions, including the states of Ohio and Kentucky, have proposed adjustments to our previously filed tax returns. We do not agree with these adjustments and believe that the tax positions taken by us related to such proposed adjustments were correct and supported by applicable statutes, regulations, and judicial authority, and we intend to vigorously defend our positions. Appropriate tax reserves have been established in accordance with ASC 740, Income Taxes and ASC�450, Contingencies. However, it is also 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. Nevertheless, although no assurances can be given, we believe that the resolution of these examinations will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position in future periods. For further discussion, see Note�17 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Franklin restructuring in the 2009 first quarter resulted in a $159.9�million net deferred tax asset equal to the amount of income and equity that was included in our operating results for the 2009 first quarter. During the 2010 first quarter, a $38.2�million net tax benefit was recognized, primarily reflecting the increase in the net deferred tax asset relating to the assets acquired from the March�31, 2009 Franklin restructuring. In the 2010 fourth quarter, we entered into an asset monetization transaction that generated a tax benefit of $63.6�million. While we believe that our positions regarding the deferred tax asset and related income recognition is correct, the positions could be subject to challenge.

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. Management continually seeks to improve these controls and procedures.

We believe that our key internal controls over financial reporting are currently effective; however, such controls and procedures will be modified, supplemented, and changed from time-to-time as necessitated by our growth and in reaction to external events and developments. While we will continue to assess our controls and procedures and take immediate action to remediate any future perceived gaps, there can be no guarantee of the effectiveness of these controls and procedures on an on-going basis. 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.

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. These actions could impact the organization in a variety of ways, including subjecting us to monetary fines, restricting our ability to pay dividends, precluding mergers or acquisitions, limiting our ability to offer certain products or services, or imposing additional capital requirements.

Current economic conditions, particularly in the financial markets, have resulted in government regulatory agencies and political bodies placing increased focus on and scrutiny of the financial services industry. 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 economic, political, and market conditions have led to numerous programs and proposals to reform the financial regulatory system and prevent future crises.

On July�21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. 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 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.

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 international rules, known as Basel III, generally increase the capital required to be held and narrow the types of instruments which will qualify as providing appropriate capital and impose a new liquidity measurement. The Basel�III requirements are complex and will be phased in over many years.

The Basel�III rules do not apply to U.S.�banks or holding companies automatically. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act requires U.S.�regulators to reform the system under which the safety and soundness of banks and other financial institutions, individually and systemically, are regulated. That reform effort will include the regulation of capital and liquidity. It is not known whether or to what extent the U.S.�regulators will incorporate elements of Basel�III into the reformed U.S.�regulatory system, but it is expected that the U.S.�reforms will include an increase in capital requirements, a narrowing of what qualifies as appropriate capital, and impose a new liquidity measurement. One likely effect of a significant tightening of U.S.�capital requirements would be to increase our cost of capital, among other things. 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. Although most financial institutions would be affected, these business impacts could be felt unevenly, depending upon the business and product mix of each institution. Other potential effects could include less 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.

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, 2011, we had 38,676�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 58 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.

As a condition to participate in the TARP, Huntington could not repurchase any additional shares without prior approval from the Treasury. On February�18, 2009, the board of directors terminated the previously authorized program for the repurchase of up to 15�million shares of common stock (the 2006 Repurchase Program). Huntington did not repurchase any common shares for the year ended December�31, 2010.

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, 2005, through December�31, 2010. 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, 2005, and the reinvestment of all dividends are assumed.

			2005					2006					2007					2008					2009					2010
HBAN			$	100				$	104				$	69				$	39				$	19				$	35
S&P 500			$	100				$	116				$	122				$	77				$	97				$	112
KBW Bank Index			$	100				$	117				$	91				$	48				$	47				$	58

HBAN S&P 500 KBW Bank Index

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

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 145�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.

The 2009 loss primarily reflected two items: $2,606.9�million in noncash goodwill impairment charges and $2,074.7�million in provision for credit losses. Most of the $2,606.9�million in goodwill impairment charges related to the acquisitions of Sky Financial and Unizan. While this impairment charge reduced reported net income, equity, and total assets, it had no impact on key regulatory capital ratios. As a noncash charge, it had no affect on our liquidity. The provision for credit losses reflected higher net charge-offs as we addressed issues in our loan portfolio. We also strengthened our allowance for credit losses because of higher levels of nonperforming assets.

Fully-taxable equivalent net interest income was $1.6�billion in 2010, up $0.2�billion, or 14%, from 2009. The increase primarily reflected the favorable impact of the increase in net interest margin to 3.44% from 3.11% and, to a lesser degree, a 3% increase in average total earning assets. A significant portion of the increase in the net interest margin reflected a shift in our deposit mix from higher-cost time deposits to lower-cost transaction-based accounts. Additionally, we grew our average core deposits $3.1�billion, or 9%, from 2009. Although average total earning assets increased only slightly compared with 2009, this change reflected a $2.9�billion, or 45%, increase in average total investment securities, partially offset by a $1.4�billion, or 4%, decline in average total loans and leases. The change in average loan balances from the prior year reflected our strategy to reduce our CRE exposure as average CRE loans declined $1.9�billion, or 21%, from 2009. Average C&I loans declined $0.7�billion, or 5%, for the full year. Average automobile loans and leases increased $1.3�billion, or 38%, from 2009, reflecting the consolidation of a $0.8�billion automobile loan securitization on January�1, 2010. These changes in loan and investment securities balances from the prior year reflected the execution of our balance sheet management strategy, and not a change in standards for making loans or for investing in securities.

Noninterest income was $1.0�billion in 2010, a slight increase compared with 2009. The increase in noninterest income was primarily a result of an increase in mortgage banking income, reflecting an increase in origination and secondary marketing income as loan originations and loan sales were substantially higher, and MSR hedging. This was partially offset by a decline in service charges on deposit accounts, which was due to a decline in personal NSF�/�OD service charges. The decline reflected our implementation of changes to Regulation�E and the introduction of our Fair Play banking philosophy. As part of this philosophy, we voluntarily reduced certain NSF�/�OD fees and implemented our 24-Hour Grace tm overdraft policy. The goal of our Fair Play banking philosophy is to introduce more customer-friendly fee structures with the objective of accelerating the acquisition and retention of customers.

Noninterest expense was $1.7�billion in 2010, a decrease of $2.4�billion, or 59%, compared with 2009. The decrease in noninterest expense was primarily due to goodwill impairment in the year-ago period. The decline also reflected a decrease in OREO and foreclosure expense from lower OREO losses. Further, there was a decline in deposit and other insurance expense, primarily due to a $23.6�million FDIC insurance special assessment in 2009, partially offset by continued growth in total deposits and higher FDIC insurance costs in the current period as premium rates increased. The decline was partially offset by a 2009 benefit from a gain on the early extinguishment of debt, and 2010 increases in personnel costs, reflecting a combination of factors

including higher salaries due to a 10% increase in full-time equivalent staff in support of strategic initiatives, higher sales commissions, and retirement fund and 401(k) plan expenses.

Credit quality performance continued to show strong improvement as our NPAs and NCOs declined and reserve coverage increased. This improvement reflected the benefits of our focused actions taken in 2009 to address credit-related issues. Compared with the prior year, NPAs declined 59%. NCOs were $874.5�million, or an annualized 2.35% of average total loans and leases, down from $1,476.6�million, or 3.82%, in 2009. While the ACL as a percentage of loans and leases was 3.39%, down from 4.16% at December�31, 2009, the ACL as a percentage of total NALs increased to 166% from 80%.

In December 2010, we successfully completed multiple capital actions, particularly improving our then relatively low level of common equity. We sold $920.0�million of common stock in a public offering and issued $300.0�million of subordinated debt. On December�22, 2010, these proceeds, along with other available funds, were used to complete the repurchase of our $1.4�billion of TARP Capital we issued to the Treasury under its TARP CPP. Subsequently, on January�19, 2011, we exited our TARP-related relationship with the Treasury by repurchasing the warrant we had issued to the Treasury as part of the TARP CPP for $49.1�million. The warrant had entitled the Treasury to purchase 23.6�million common shares of stock.

At December�31, 2010, our regulatory Tier�1 and Total risk-based capital were $2.4�billion and $1.9�billion, respectively, above the Well-capitalized regulatory thresholds. Our tangible common equity ratio improved 164�basis points to 7.56% and our Tier�1 common risk-based capital ratio improved 253�basis points to 9.29% from December�31, 2009.

Our general business objectives are: (1)�grow revenue and profitability, (2)�grow key fee businesses (existing and new), (3)�improve credit quality, including lower NCOs and NPAs, (4)�improve cross-sell and share-of-wallet across all business segments, (5)�reduce CRE noncore exposure, and (6)�continue to improve our overall management of risk.

As further described below, our main challenge to accomplishing our primary objectives results from an economy, that while more stable than a year ago, remains fragile. This impairs our ability to grow loans as customers continue to reduce their debt and�/�or remain cautious about increasing debt until they have a higher degree of confidence in a meaningful sustainable economic recovery. However, growth in our automobile loan portfolio continued with 2010 originations of $3.4�billion, an increase of $1.8�billion compared to 2009. Strong growth in originations reflected increases in all of our markets, as well as the recent expansion of our automobile lending business into Eastern Pennsylvania and five New England states. We expect our growth in the newly entered markets to become more evident over time as we further develop our dealership base. Although our residential real estate portfolio declined slightly from 2009, our mortgage originations increased $214�million, or 4%, from the prior year. Our CRE portfolio declined throughout the year as a result of our on-going strategy to reduce our CRE exposure. The decline was primarily a result of continuing paydowns in the noncore CRE portfolio.

We face strong competition from other banks and financial service firms in our markets. As such, we have placed strategic emphasis on, and continue to develop and expand resources devoted to, improving cross-sell performance with our core customer base. One example of this emphasis was our recent agreement with Giant Eagle supermarkets to be its exclusive in-store bank in Ohio. During the 2010 fourth quarter, we opened four such in-store branches. When fully implemented, the partnership will give us an additional 100 branches, which in the aggregate will be nearly 500 branches in Ohio, providing us with the largest branch presence among Ohio banks, based on current data. In-store branches have a strong record for checking account acquisition and are expected to increase the number of households served and drive revenue. Additionally, it will give customers the convenience of operating seven days per week and extended hours banking.

The weak residential real estate market and U.S.�economy has had a significant adverse impact on the financial services industry as a whole, and specifically on our financial results. In addition, the U.S.�recession during 2008 and 2009 and continued high Midwest unemployment have hindered any significant economic recovery. However, some indications of recovery are beginning to take hold. Following is a discussion of certain economic trends in our market area, particularly Ohio and Michigan.

The median home prices in the Midwest market have been directionally consistent with the nationwide averages. In the years preceding the economic crisis, home prices in Michigan and Ohio did not increase as rapidly as the national trend and became more in line with the national averages during the crisis. Therefore, when real estate prices began to decline in 2008, the impact in our Midwest markets was reduced because pre-crisis originations were not based on values that were as inflated as in other parts of the country. Home prices in the Midwest are generally expected to follow the national growth rates over the next two years. Residential real estate sales in the Midwest have been consistent with national averages. Single family home building permits are expected to increase both nationally and in the Midwest through 2013.

Year-over-year changes in median household income in the Midwest have been consistent with national averages and directionally similar with national trends. Both the U.S.�and Midwest are expected to have slight, but positive, income growth over the next two years. Unemployment in the Midwest has been consistently higher than the national average for most of the past decade. However, the relative difference is expected to narrow over the next two years, with the Midwest unemployment rate converging to the U.S.�average. The exception is Michigan, which has the second highest unemployment level in the country. From October 2009 through October 2010, Indiana�s employment growth of 1.1% was among the strongest in the country. Over this same time period, Ohio�s manufacturing employment grew 1.4%, which was significantly higher than the 0.8% national average. Cleveland�s overall employment growth of 1.0% exceeded the national growth rate of 0.6%.

According to the FRB-Cleveland Beige Book in December 2010, manufacturers in our footprint indicated that new orders and production were stable or rose slightly during the last two months of 2010. Inventory levels were balanced with incoming order demand and capacity utilization trending up for some manufacturers and steel producers. Overall, manufacturers were cautiously optimistic and expect at least modest growth during 2011.

Legislative and regulatory reforms continue to be adopted which impose additional restrictions on current business practices. Recent actions affecting us included an amendment to Regulation�E relating to certain overdraft fees for consumer deposit accounts and the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Effective July�1, 2010, the Federal Reserve Board amended Regulation�E to prohibit charging overdraft fees for ATM or point-of-sale debit card transactions that overdraw the customer�s account unless the customer opts-in to the discretionary overdraft service. For us, such fees were approximately $90�million per year prior to the amendment. This change in Regulation�E requires us to alert our consumer customers we can no longer allow an overdraft unless they opt-in to our discretionary overdraft service. To date, the number of customers choosing to opt-in has been higher than our expectations. Also, during the second half of 2010, we voluntarily

reduced certain overdraft fees and introduced 24-Hour Grace tm on overdrafts as part of our Fair Play banking philosophy designed to build on our foundation of service excellence. We expect our 24-Hour Grace tm service to accelerate acquisition of new checking customers, while improving retention of existing customers.

The recently passed Dodd-Frank Act is complex and we continue to assess how this legislation and subsequent rule-making will affect us. As hundreds of regulations are promulgated, we will continue to evaluate impacts such as changes in regulatory costs and fees, modifications to consumer products or disclosures required by the CFPB, and the requirements of the enhanced supervision provisions, among others. Two areas where we are focusing on the financial impact are: interchange fees and the exclusion of trust-preferred securities from our Tier�I regulatory capital.

Currently, interchange fees are approximately $90�million per year. In the future, the Dodd-Frank Act gives the Federal Reserve, and no longer the banks or system owners, the ability to set the interchange rate charged to merchants for the use of debit cards. The ultimate impact to us will depend on rules yet to be issued by the Federal Reserve. Proposed rules were issued on December�28, 2010, and the Dodd-Frank Act requires final interchange rules to be issued by April�21, 2011, and effective no later than July�21, 2011. Based on the Federal Reserve�s proposed rules, a maximum interchange rate of $0.07 would reduce our annual interchange fees by approximately 85%. A maximum interchange rate of $0.12 would reduce our annual interchange fees by approximately 75%.

At December�31, 2010, we had $569.9�million of outstanding trust-preferred securities that, if disallowed, would reduce our regulatory Tier�1 risk-based capital ratio by approximately 130�basis points. Even with this reduction, our capital ratios would remain above Well-capitalized levels. There is a three year phase-in period beginning on January�1, 2013, that we believe will provide sufficient time to evaluate and address the impacts of this new legislation on our capital structure. Accordingly, we do not anticipate this potential change will have a significant impact to our business.

During the 2010 third quarter, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision revised the Capital Accord (Basel III), which narrows the definition of capital and increases capital requirements for specific exposures. The new capital requirements will be phased-in over six years beginning in 2013. If these revisions were adopted currently, we estimate they would have a negligible impact on our regulatory capital ratios based on our current understanding of the revisions to capital qualification. We await clarification from our banking regulators on their interpretation of Basel�III and any additional requirements to the stated thresholds. The FDIC has approved issuance of an interagency proposed rulemaking to implement certain provisions of Section�171 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Section�171). Section�171 provides that the capital requirements generally applicable to insured banks shall serve as a floor for other capital requirements the agencies establish. The FDIC noted that the advanced approaches of Basel�III allow for reductions in risk-based capital requirements below those generally applicable to insured banks and, accordingly, need to be modified to be consistent with Section�171.

these organizations against losses due to material breaches of these representations and warranties. At December�31, 2010, we have a reserve for such losses of $20.2�million, which is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities.

Borrower and consumer confidence remains a major factor impacting growth opportunities for 2011. We continue to believe that the economy will remain relatively stable throughout 2011, with the potential for improvement in the latter half. Challenges to earnings growth include (1)�revenue headwinds as a result of regulatory and legislative actions, (2)�anticipated higher interest rates as we enter 2011, which is expected to reduce mortgage banking income, and (3)�continued investments in growing our businesses.

Reflecting these factors, pre-tax, pre-provision income levels are expected to remain in line with 2010 second half performance. Nevertheless, net income growth from the 2010 fourth quarter level is anticipated throughout the year. This will primarily reflect on-going reductions in credit costs. We expect the absolute levels of NCOs, NPAs, and Criticized loans will continue to decline, resulting in lower levels of provision expense. Given the significant credit-related improvements in 2010, coupled with our expectation for continued improvement, our return to more normalized levels of credit costs could occur earlier than previously expected.

The net interest margin is expected to be flat or increase slightly from the 2010 fourth quarter. We anticipate continued benefit from lower deposit pricing. In addition, the absolute growth in loans compared with deposits is anticipated to be more comparable, thus reducing the absolute growth in lower yield investment securities.

The automobile loan portfolio is expected to continue its strong growth, and we anticipate continued growth in C&I loans. Home equity and residential mortgages are likely to show only modest growth. CRE loans are expected to continue to decline, but at a slower rate.

Core deposits are expected to show continued growth. Further, we expect the shift toward lower-cost demand deposit accounts will continue.

Fee income, compared with the 2010 fourth quarter, will be negatively impacted by lower interchange fees due to regulatory fee change and a decline in mortgage banking revenues due to a higher interest rate environment as we enter 2011. With regard to interchange fees, if enacted as recently outlined, the Federal Reserve�s proposed interchange fee structure will significantly lower interchange revenue. Other fee categories are expected to grow, reflecting the impact of our cross-sell initiatives throughout the Company, as well as the positive impact from strategic initiatives. Over time, we anticipate more than offsetting revenue challenges with revenue we expect to generate by accelerating customer growth and cross-sell results. Expense levels early in the year should be up modestly from 2010 fourth quarter performance, with increases later in the year due to continued investments to grow the business.

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

This section provides a review of financial performance from a consolidated perspective. It also includes a Significant Items section that summarizes key issues important for a complete understanding of performance trends. Key consolidated balance sheet and income statement trends are discussed. All earnings per share data is reported on a diluted basis. For additional insight on financial performance, please read this section in conjunction with the Item�7: Business Segment Discussion.

From time-to-time, revenue, expenses, or taxes, are impacted by items judged by us to be outside of ordinary banking activities and�/�or by items that, while they may be associated with ordinary banking activities, are so unusually large that their outsized impact is believed by us at that time to be infrequent or short-term in nature. We refer to such items as Significant Items. Most often, these Significant Items result from factors originating outside the Company; e.g., regulatory actions�/�assessments, windfall gains, changes in accounting principles, one-time tax assessments�/�refunds, etc. In other cases they may result from our decisions associated with significant corporate actions out of the ordinary course of business; e.g., merger�/�restructuring charges, recapitalization actions, goodwill impairment, etc.

Even though certain revenue and expense items are naturally subject to more volatility than others due to changes in market and economic environment conditions, as a general rule volatility alone does not define a Significant Item. For example, changes in the provision for credit losses, gains�/�losses from investment activities, asset valuation writedowns, etc., reflect ordinary banking activities and are, therefore, typically excluded from consideration as a Significant Item.

We believe the disclosure of Significant Items in results provides a better understanding of our performance and trends to ascertain which of such items, if any, to include or exclude from an analysis of our performance; i.e., within the context of determining how that performance differed from expectations, as well as how, if at all, to adjust estimates of future performance accordingly. To this end, we adopted a practice of listing Significant Items in our external disclosure documents (e.g., earnings press releases, investor presentations, Forms�10-Q and 10-K).

Significant Items for any particular period are not intended to be a complete list of items that may materially impact current or future period performance.

Earnings comparisons among the three years ended December�31, 2010, 2009, and 2008 were impacted by a number of significant items summarized below.

The following table reflects the earnings impact of the above-mentioned significant items for periods affected by this Results of Operations discussion:

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

The following table reflects pretax, pre-provision income for the three years ended December�31, 2010:

As discussed in more detail in the sections that follow, the increase from 2009 primarily reflected improved revenue, including higher net interest income, partially offset by higher noninterest expense, including personnel costs and marketing.

Our primary source of revenue is net interest income, which is the difference between interest income from earning assets (primarily loans, securities, and direct financing leases), and interest expense of funding sources (primarily interest-bearing deposits and borrowings). Earning asset balances and related funding sources, as well as changes in the levels of interest rates, impact net interest income. The difference between the average yield on earning assets and the average rate paid for interest-bearing liabilities is the net interest spread. Noninterest-bearing sources of funds, such as demand deposits and shareholders� equity, also support earning assets. The impact of the noninterest-bearing sources of funds, often referred to as �free� funds, is captured in the net interest margin, which is calculated as net interest income divided by average earning assets. Both the net interest margin and net interest spread are presented on a fully-taxable equivalent basis, which means that tax-free interest income has been adjusted to a pretax equivalent income, assuming a 35% tax rate.

The following table shows changes in fully-taxable equivalent interest income, interest expense, and net interest income due to volume and rate variances for major categories of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities.