18.	GUARANTEES, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Bank’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party for commitments to make loans and standby letters of credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The Bank uses the same credit policies in making these commitments as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. For interest rate swap transactions and commitments to purchase or sell securities for forward delivery, the contract or notional amounts do not represent exposure to credit loss. The Bank controls the credit risk of these derivative instruments through credit approvals, limits and monitoring procedures. Certain derivative contracts have credit risk for the carrying value plus the amount to replace such contracts in the event of counterparty default. All of the Bank’s financial instruments are held for risk management and not for trading purposes. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, there were no credit losses associated with derivative contracts.

In the normal course of business, there are outstanding commitments and contingent liabilities, such as commitments to extend credit, letters of credit, and others that are not included in the consolidated financial statements. The financial instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of amounts recognized in the financial statements. A summary of these commitments and contingent liabilities is presented below:

 

		December 31,
		2013				2012
		(Dollars in Thousands)
Standby Letters of Credit		$	931			$	1,092
Commitments to Extend Credit		$	28,875			$	32,123

Standby letters of credit are contingent commitments issued by the Bank generally to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. The Bank has recourse against the customer for any amount that it is required to pay to a third party under a standby letter of credit. Revenues are recognized over the lives of the standby letters of credit. The potential amount of future payments that the Bank could be required to make under its standby letters of credit, which represent the Bank’s total credit risk, are listed in the table above.

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank evaluates each customer’s creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary by the Bank upon extension of credit, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the counterparty. Collateral held varies but may include accounts receivable, inventory, property, plant and equipment and income-producing commercial properties.

Commitments to purchase securities for delayed delivery require the Bank to purchase a specified security at a specified price for delivery on a specified date. Similarly, commitments to sell securities for delayed delivery require the Bank to sell a specified security at a specified price for delivery on a specified date. Market risk arises from potential movements in security values and interest rates between the commitment and delivery dates. As of December 31, 2013, there was $3.0 million in outstanding commitments to purchase securities for delayed delivery and no outstanding commitments to sell securities for delayed delivery. As of December 31, 2012, there were no outstanding commitments to purchase and sell securities for delayed delivery.

Litigation

On September 27, 2007, Malcomb Graves Automotive, LLC (“Graves Automotive”), Malcomb Graves and Tina Graves filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Alabama against USBI, the Bank, ALC and their respective directors and officers seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. A former employee of ALC, Corey Mitchell, was named as a co-defendant, and ALC and the Bank filed a crossclaim against him seeking, among other relief, defense and indemnification for any damages suffered in the underlying lawsuit. The underlying complaint alleged that the defendants committed fraud in misrepresenting to Graves Automotive the amounts that Graves Automotive owed on certain loans and failing to credit Graves Automotive properly for certain loans. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, and the trial court denied the defendants’ motion. The defendants appealed this decision, and, on September 29, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion. Following the return of the case to the active docket, on November 30, 2010, ALC and the Bank moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response to this motion to dismiss, on June 15, 2011, the Circuit Court dismissed all claims against USBI, the Bank and their respective directors and officers and all claims that were brought by Malcomb Graves and Tina Graves in their individual capacities. The Circuit Court also dismissed Graves Automotive’s claims for conversion and negligent supervision against ALC and ordered Graves Automotive to re-plead its fraud allegations against ALC with more particularity. On September 15, 2011, Graves Automotive filed a third amended complaint in response to the Circuit Court’s June 15, 2011 order. In its third amended complaint, Graves Automotive asserted claims against ALC for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment and conversion. ALC moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on many of the same grounds as set forth in its previous motion to dismiss. On October 13, 2011, the Circuit Court dismissed Graves Automotive’s conversion claim and again ordered Graves Automotive to re-plead its fraud claims with more particularity, this time within 60 days. On December 12, 2011, Graves Automotive filed its fourth amended complaint, this time asserting only two counts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Despite removing the fraud claims, the fourth amended complaint still requests punitive damages. On January 11, 2012, ALC filed a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint and to strike Graves Automotive’s request for punitive damages. This motion was heard on November 27, 2012, and the Circuit Court struck the punitive damages claim but allowed the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims to go forward. Because Graves Automotive had been unable to produce any documents supporting these remaining claims, on September 30, 2013, the court entered an order requiring Graves Automotive to produce a number of categories of specific documents evidencing the unreimbursed work it had allegedly performed for ALC. After the deadline to produce the documents had passed, ALC filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to comply with the discovery order or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment based upon Graves Automotive’s inability to produce evidence supporting its claims. In response, Graves recently submitted an affidavit and produced a number of documents purportedly supporting its claims and damages. ALC is currently in the process of supplementing its Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment to address Graves Automotive’s recent production. This motion is set for hearing on May 20, 2014. ALC also has made a nominal settlement offer to avoid the costs associated with additional litigation. ALC has yet to receive a response to this offer. ALC continues to deny the allegations against it in the lawsuit with respect to the remaining claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Given the lack of discovery conducted, it is too early to assess the likelihood of a resolution of the remaining claims in this matter or the possibility of an unfavorable outcome.

On December 2, 2013, Wayne Allen Russell filed a lawsuit against the Bank in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, alleging that the Bank wrongfully foreclosed on a parcel of property owned by Russell that was subject to a mortgage in favor of the Bank. Mr. Russell alleges that the loan secured by the mortgage had been satisfied in full from the proceeds of a prior foreclosure of additional properties subject to the same mortgage. Mr. Russell seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The Bank denies Mr. Russell’s allegations and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. However, given the lack of discovery conducted, it is too early to assess the likelihood of a resolution of this matter or the possibility of an unfavorable outcome.

The Company is also party to other litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all such litigation. In the opinion of the Company, based on review and consultation with legal counsel, the outcome of such other litigation should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements or results of operations.