XML 42 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.4
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
The Company has outstanding, at any time, a number of commitments to extend credit. These commitments include revolving home equity line and other credit agreements, term loan commitments and standby and commercial letters of credit. Standby and commercial letters of credit are conditional commitments issued to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. Standby letters of credit are contingent upon the failure of the customer to perform according to the terms of the underlying contract with the third party, while commercial letters of credit are issued specifically to facilitate commerce and typically result in the commitment being drawn on when the underlying transaction is consummated between the customer and the third party.

These commitments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Condition. 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 Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. Commitments to extend commercial, commercial real estate and construction loans totaled $9.5 billion and $7.8 billion as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and unused home equity lines totaled $796.9 million and $749.4 million as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Standby and commercial letters of credit totaled $344.4 million at December 31, 2022 and $351.1 million at December 31, 2021.

In addition, at December 31, 2022 and 2021, the Company had approximately $181.0 million and $590.0 million, respectively, in commitments to fund residential mortgage loans to be sold into the secondary market. These lending commitments are also considered derivative instruments. The Company also enters into forward contracts for the future delivery of residential mortgage loans at specified interest rates to reduce the interest rate risk associated with commitments to fund loans as well as mortgage loans held-for-sale. These forward contracts are also considered derivative instruments and had contractual amounts of approximately $321.0 million at December 31, 2022 and $952.3 million at December 31, 2021. See Note (21) “Derivative Financial Instruments” in Item 8 of this report for further discussion on derivative instruments.

The Company enters into residential mortgage loan sale agreements with investors in the normal course of business. These agreements usually require certain representations concerning credit information, loan documentation, collateral and insurability. On occasion, investors have requested the Company to indemnify them against losses on certain loans or to repurchase loans which the investors believe do not comply with applicable representations. Management maintains a liability for estimated losses on loans expected to be repurchased or on which indemnification is expected to be provided and regularly
evaluates the adequacy of this recourse liability based on trends in repurchase and indemnification requests, actual loss experience, known and inherent risks in the loans, and current economic conditions.

The Company sold approximately $3.1 billion of mortgage loans in 2022 and $7.4 billion in 2021. The liability for estimated losses on repurchase and indemnification claims for residential mortgage loans previously sold to investors was approximately $624,000 and $675,000 at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and was included in other liabilities on the Consolidated Statements of Condition. Losses charged against the liability were $60,000 in 2022 as compared to $219,000 in 2021. These losses relate to mortgages which experienced early payment and other defaults meeting certain representation and warranty recourse requirements.

The Company had unfunded commitments to investment partnerships that qualify for CRA purposes totaling $50.9 million and $40.3 million as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Of these commitments, on both reporting dates, $7.1 million related to legally-binding unfunded commitments for tax-credit investments and were included within other liabilities on the Consolidated Statements of Condition as of December 31, 2022 and 2021.

The Company utilizes an out-sourced securities clearing platform and has agreed to indemnify the clearing broker of Wintrust Investments for losses that it may sustain from the customer accounts introduced by Wintrust Investments. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, the total amount of customer balances maintained by the clearing broker and subject to indemnification was approximately $15.8 million and $22.5 million, respectively. Wintrust Investments seeks to control the risks associated with its customers’ activities by requiring customers to maintain margin collateral in compliance with various regulatory and internal guidelines.
Litigation Matters

In accordance with applicable accounting principles, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation and threatened litigation actions and proceedings when those actions present loss contingencies, which are both probable and estimable. In actions for which a loss is reasonably possible in future periods, the Company determines whether it can estimate a loss or range of possible loss. To determine whether a possible loss is estimable, the Company reviews and evaluates its material litigation on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. This review may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on substantive or dispositive motions, and settlement discussions.

Wintrust Mortgage Matter

On October 17, 2018, a former Wintrust Mortgage employee filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California against Wintrust Mortgage alleging violation of California wage payment statutes on behalf of herself and all other hourly, non-exempt employees of Wintrust Mortgage in California. Wintrust Mortgage received service of the complaint on November 4, 2018. Wintrust Mortgage filed its response to the complaint on February 25, 2019. On November 1, 2019, the plaintiff's counsel filed a letter with the California Department of Labor advising that it was initiating an action under California's Private Attorney General Act statute based on the same alleged violations. In November 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The parties executed a settlement agreement and on February 26, 2020, plaintiff moved the court for approval. A hearing on the motion to approve settlement was originally set for June 16, 2020, but the court continued the motion to September 8, 2020. On September 8, 2020, the court requested the parties make certain changes to the settlement agreement that were immaterial to the parties’ settlement terms. The parties revised the settlement agreement consistent with the court's recommendations and submitted the revised settlement agreement to the court for its approval. On January 27, 2021, the court entered its preliminary approval of the settlement. After no class members opted out or objected to the settlement, the court issued its final approval of the settlement on June 17, 2021 and on June 18, 2021, Wintrust Mortgage tendered the settlement amount to the class claims administrator. Payments to class members have been completed and this matter is closed. The Company had reserved an amount for this settlement that is immaterial to its results of operations or financial condition.

Wintrust Mortgage California PAGA Matter

On May 24, 2022, a former Wintrust Mortgage employee filed a California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) suit, not individually, but as representative of all Wintrust Mortgage’s California hourly employees, against Wintrust Mortgage in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California. Plaintiff alleges Wintrust Mortgage failed to provide: (i) accurate sick leave accrual and pay; (ii) overtime wages; (iii) accurately itemized wage statements; (iv) meal breaks and meal premiums; (v) timely payment of earned wages; (vi) payment of all earned wages; and (vii) payment of all vested vacation hours. Wintrust Mortgage disputes the validity of Plaintiff’s claims and believes, to the extent there were defects in complying with California law governing the payment of compensation to Plaintiff, such errors would have been de minimis. Plaintiff also has an arbitration agreement with a collective and class action waiver. On January 19, 2023, Wintrust Mortgage moved to compel arbitration. The court entered and continued the motion until June 23, 2023 and stayed further proceedings in anticipation of a California Supreme Court decision on PAGA arbitrations. We believe plaintiff’s allegations to be legally and factually meritless and otherwise lack sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability.
Wintrust Mortgage Fair Lending Matter

On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended compliant. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision by the court. We vigorously dispute these allegations, believe them to be legally and factually meritless, and otherwise lack sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability.

Wintrust ERISA Matter

On July 29, 2022, a former Wintrust employee filed a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) against Wintrust. Plaintiff alleges Wintrust breached its fiduciary duty in the selection of BlackRock Target Date funds for inclusion in its 401(k) plan, that Wintrust failed to monitor the performance of those funds, and in the alternative, Wintrust should be liable for breach of trust. Plaintiff’s sole basis for the allegations is that BlackRock Target Date funds allegedly performed more poorly than two comparable funds over a three year period. On November 8, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The motion has been fully briefed. We believe plaintiff’s allegations to be legally and factually meritless and otherwise lack sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability.

Other Matters

In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to pending and threatened legal action and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.

Based on information currently available and upon consultation with counsel, management believes that the eventual outcome of any pending or threatened legal actions and proceedings described above, including our ordinary course litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on the operations or financial condition of the Company. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations or financial condition for a particular period.