CASH 2017 Annual Report

135 (1) The Basel III Capital Rules revised the definition of capital, increased minimum capital ratios, and introduced a minimum CET1 ratio. Those changes became effective for the Company on January 1, 2015, and are being fully phased in through the end of 2021. The capital ratios were determined using the Basel III Capital Rules that became effective on January 1, 2015. Beginning January 1, 2016, Basel III implemented a requirement for all banking organizations to maintain a capital conservation buffer above theminimum risk-based capital requirements in order to avoid certain limitations on capital distributions, stock repurchases and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers. The capital conservation buffer is exclusively composed of Common Equity Tier 1 capital, and it applies to each of the three risk-based capital ratios but not the leverage ratio. On January 1, 2016, the Company and Bank were expected to comply with the capital conservation buffer requirement, which increased the three risk-based capital ratios by 0.625% each year through 2019, at which point the Common Equity Tier 1 risk-based, Tier 1 risk-based and total risk-based capital ratios will be 7.0%, 8.5% and 10.5%, respectively. NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, the Bank makes various commitments to extend credit which are not reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At September 30, 2017 and 2016, unfunded loan commitments approximated $233.2 million and $182.9 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are cancelled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract. The Company had no commitments to purchase or sell securities at September 30, 2017 or September 30, 2016. The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by other parties to financial instruments for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The same credit policies and collateral requirements are used in making commitments and conditional obligations as are used for on-balance-sheet instruments. Management monitors several factors when estimating its allowance for uncollectible off-balance-sheet credit exposures, including, but not limited to, economic developments and historical loss rates. Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit expire without being used, the amount does not necessarily represent future cash commitments. In addition, commitments used to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Securities with fair values of approximately $5.7 million and $5.8 million at September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $3.8 million and $3.4 million at September 30, 2017, and 2016, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits. Legal Proceedings The Bankwas served onApril 15, 2013, with a lawsuit captioned Inter National Bank v. NetSpend Corporation, MetaBank, BDO USA, LLP d/b/a BDO Seidman, Cause No. C-2084-12-I filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction adds both MetaBank and BDO Seidman to the original causes of action against NetSpend. NetSpend acts as a prepaid card programmanager and processor for both INB and MetaBank. According to the Petition, NetSpend has informed Inter National Bank (“INB”) that the depository accounts at INB for the NetSpend program supposedly contained $10.5 million less than they should. INB alleges that NetSpend has breached its fiduciary duty by making affirmative misrepresentations to INB about the safety and stability of the program, and by failing to timely disclose the nature and extent of any alleged shortfall in settlement of funds related to cardholder activity and the nature and extent of NetSpend’s systemic deficiencies in its accounting and settlement processing procedures. To the extent that an accounting reveals that there is an actual shortfall, INB alleges that MetaBank may be liable for portions or all of said sum due to the fact that funds have been transferred from INB to MetaBank, and thus MetaBank would have been unjustly enriched. The Bank is vigorously contesting this matter. In January 2014, NetSpend was granted summary judgment in this matter which is under appeal. Because the theory of liability against both NetSpend and the Bank is the same, the Bank views the NetSpend summary judgment as a positive in support of our position. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.