| Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments
The Corporation is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers.
Those financial instruments include commitments to extend credit and letters of credit, which involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit risk and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized on the Corporation’s consolidated balance sheets. Exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit and letters of credit is represented by the outstanding amount of those instruments.
The outstanding amounts of commitments to extend credit and letters of credit as of the dates indicated were as follows: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (in thousands) | Commitments to extend credit | $ | 5,898,623 |
| | $ | 5,784,138 |
| Standby letters of credit | 362,506 |
| | 374,729 |
| Commercial letters of credit | 37,836 |
| | 39,529 |
|
The Corporation records a reserve for unfunded lending commitments, which represents management’s estimate of losses associated with unused commitments to extend credit. See Note 5, "Loans and Allowance for Credit Losses," for additional details.
Residential Lending
Residential mortgages originated and sold by the Corporation consist primarily of conforming, prime loans sold to government sponsored agencies, such as the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"). The Corporation also sells certain prime loans it originates to non-government sponsored agency investors.
The Corporation provides customary representations and warranties to government sponsored entities and investors that specify, among other things, that the loans have been underwritten to the standards established by the government sponsored entity or investor. The Corporation may be required to repurchase a loan, or reimburse the government sponsored entity or investor for a credit loss incurred on a loan, if it is determined that the representations and warranties have not been met. Such repurchases or reimbursements generally result from an underwriting or documentation deficiency. As of both June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, total outstanding repurchase requests totaled approximately $543,000.
From 2000 to 2011, the Corporation sold loans to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh under its Mortgage Partnership Finance Program ("MPF Program"). The Corporation provided a "credit enhancement" for residential mortgage loans sold under the MPF Program whereby it would assume credit losses in excess of a defined "First Loss Account," or "FLA" balance, up to specified amounts. The FLA is funded by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh based on a percentage of the outstanding principal balance of loans sold. As of June 30, 2016, the unpaid principal balance of loans sold under the MPF Program was approximately $114 million. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the reserve for estimated credit losses related to loans sold under the MPF Program was $2.1 million and $1.8 million, respectively. Required reserves are calculated based on delinquency status and estimated loss rates established through the Corporation's existing allowance for credit losses methodology for residential mortgage loans.
As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the total reserve for losses on residential mortgage loans sold was $2.8 million and $2.6 million, respectively, including both reserves for credit losses under the MPF Program and reserves for representation and warranty exposures. Management believes that the reserves recorded as of June 30, 2016 are adequate. However, declines in collateral values, the identification of additional loans to be repurchased, or a deterioration in the credit quality of loans sold under the MPF Program could necessitate additional reserves, established through charges to earnings, in the future.
Legal Proceedings
The Corporation and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business of the Corporation. The Corporation periodically evaluates the possible impact of pending litigation matters based on, among other factors, the advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and recorded liabilities and reserves for probable legal liabilities and costs. In addition, from time to time, the Corporation is the subject of investigations or other forms of regulatory or governmental inquiry covering a range of possible issues and, in some cases, these may be part of similar reviews of the specified activities of other industry participants. These inquiries could lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, and could possibly result in fines, penalties, restitution or the need to alter the Corporation’s business practices, and cause the Corporation to incur additional costs. The Corporation’s practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations.
As of the date of this report, the Corporation believes that any liabilities, individually or in the aggregate, which may result from the final outcomes of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Corporation. However, legal proceedings are often unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate resolution of any such matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the Corporation’s results of operations for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the size of the loss or liability imposed and the operating results for the applicable period.
BSA/AML Enforcement Orders
The Corporation and each of its bank subsidiaries are subject to regulatory enforcement orders issued during 2014 and 2015 by their respective federal and state bank regulatory agencies relating to identified deficiencies in the Corporation’s centralized Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance program (the "BSA/AML Compliance Program"), which was designed to comply with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and related anti-money laundering regulations (collectively, the "BSA/AML Requirements"). The regulatory enforcement orders, which are in the form of consent orders or orders to cease and desist issued upon consent ("Consent Orders"), generally require, among other things, that the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries undertake a number of required actions to strengthen and enhance the BSA/AML Compliance Program, and, in some cases, conduct retrospective reviews of past account activity and transactions, as well as certain reports filed in accordance with the BSA/AML Requirements, to determine whether suspicious activity and certain transactions in currency were properly identified and reported in accordance with the BSA/AML Requirements. In addition to requiring strengthening and enhancement of the BSA/AML Compliance Program, while the Consent Orders remain in effect, the Corporation is subject to certain restrictions on expansion activities of the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries. Further, any failure to comply with the requirements of any of the Consent Orders involving the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries could result in further enforcement actions, the imposition of material restrictions on the activities of the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries, or the assessment of fines or penalties.
Fair Lending Investigation
During the second quarter of 2015, Fulton Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), the Corporation’s largest bank subsidiary, received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (the "Department") indicating that the Department had initiated an investigation regarding potential violations of fair lending laws by the Bank in certain of its geographies. The Bank is cooperating with the Department and responding to the Department’s requests for information. Although the Corporation is not able to predict the outcome of the Department’s investigation, it could result in legal proceedings the resolution of which could potentially involve a settlement, fines or other remedial actions.
Agostino, et al. Litigation
Fulton Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), the Corporation’s largest bank subsidiary, and two unrelated, third-party defendants, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and Riverview Bank, have been named as defendants in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of 58 plaintiffs filed on March 31, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (Agostino, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., No. 2016-CV-2048-CV). The plaintiffs in this action, who are individuals, trustees of certain irrevocable trusts or the executors of the estates of deceased individuals, were clients of Jeffrey M. Mottern, a now deceased attorney, who is alleged to have operated a Ponzi scheme which defrauded the plaintiffs over a period of years through the sale of fictitious, high-yielding investments or by otherwise misappropriating funds entrusted to Mr. Mottern. Mr. Mottern is alleged to have used the proceeds of these activities to engage in speculative securities trading, which incurred significant losses, and for Mr. Mottern’s personal expenses. The allegations against the Bank relate to a commercial checking account at the Bank maintained by Mr. Mottern in connection with Mr. Mottern’s law practice. The lawsuit alleges that the Bank is liable to the plaintiffs for failing to properly monitor Mr. Mottern’s checking account and detect Mr. Mottern’s fraudulent activity, and specifically alleges that the Bank aided and abetted Mr. Mottern’s: (1) fraud; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (4) conversion. Similar claims have been asserted against Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and Riverview Bank, which allegedly maintained a personal brokerage account and a trust account for client or other third-party funds, respectively, for Mr. Mottern. The lawsuit seeks damages from the defendants, including the Bank, alleged to be in excess of $11.3 million, treble damages and attorneys’ fees with respect to alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, punitive damages, plus interest and costs. On April 29, 2016, the Bank filed a Notice of Removal to remove this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 25, 2016, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. On May 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. On June 17, 2016, the Bank filed a brief opposing the motion to remand. The motion to remand is pending before the District Court and further briefing on the motion to dismiss has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to remand. |
