Legal	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Legal [Abstract]
Legal	Note 14. Legal On June 12, 2019, the Bank was served with a qui tam lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. The Delaware Department of Justice intervened in the litigation. The case is titled The State of Delaware, Plaintiff, Ex rel. Russell S. Rogers, Plaintiff-Relator, v. The Bancorp Bank, Interactive Communications International, Inc., and InComm Financial Services, Inc., Defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Delaware False Claims Act by not paying balances on certain open-loop “Vanilla” prepaid cards to the State of Delaware as unclaimed property. The complaint seeks actual and treble damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. The Bank has filed an answer denying the allegations and continues to vigorously defend against the claims. The Bank and other defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss the action, but the motion was denied and the case is in preliminary stages of discovery. The Company is unable to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations. On January 12, 2021, three former employees of the Bank filed separate complaints against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The Company subsequently removed all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases are captioned: John Edward Barker, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp, Inc., Defendant; Alexander John Kamai, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp, Inc., Defendant; and John Patrick McGlynn III, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp, Inc., Defendant. The lawsuits arise from the Bank’s termination of the plaintiffs’ employment in connection with the restructuring of its CMBS business. The plaintiffs sought damages in the following amounts: $4,135,142 (Barker), $901,088 (Kamai) and $2,909,627 (McGlynn). On June 11, 2021, the Company filed a consolidated motion to dismiss in each case. On February 25, 2022, the court granted the Company’s motion in part, dismissing McGlynn’s claims in entirety and most of Barker and Kamai’s claims. The sole claims remaining are Barker and Kamai’s breach of implied contract claims related to an unpaid bonus, for which they seek $2,000,000 and $300,000, respectively. On September 29, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in both matters. On September 8, 2023, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment closing both cases. The Company now considers these matters resolved. On September 14, 2021, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”) filed an adversary proceeding against the Bank in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, titled Cachet Financial Services, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp Bank, et al., Defendants. The case was filed within the context of Cachet’s pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The Bank previously served as the Originating Depository Financial Institution (“ODFI”) for automated clearing house (“ACH”) transactions in connection with Cachet’s payroll services business. The matter arises from the Bank’s termination of its Payroll Processing ODFI Agreement with Cachet on October 23, 2019, for safety and soundness reasons. The initial complaint alleges eight causes of action: (i) breach of contract; (ii) negligence; (iii) intentional interference with contract; (iv) conversion; (v) express indemnity; (vi) implied indemnity; (vii) accounting; and (viii) objection to the Bank’s proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. On November 4, 2021, the Bank filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court, which was denied in February 2023. On August 3, 2022, Cachet served the Bank with a First Amended Complaint wherein Cachet, among other things, withdraws its implied indemnity claim against the Bank and adds several defendants unaffiliated with the Bank and causes of action related to those parties. As to the Bank, Cachet seeks approximately $150 million in damages, an accounting and disallowance of the Bank’s proof of claim. The Bank is vigorously defending against these claims. On September 28, 2022, the Bank filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking to dispose of the majority of Cachet’s claims against the Bank. The motion is still pending before the bankruptcy court. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or operations. On March 27, 2023, the Bank received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) seeking documents and information related to the Bank’s escheatment practices in connection with certain accounts offered through one of the Bank’s program partners. The Bank continues to cooperate with the CFPB, including by responding to the CID. While the Company remains confident in the Bank’s escheatment practices, it cannot predict the timing or final outcome of the investigation. Future costs related to this matter may be material and could continue to be material at least through the completion of the investigation. On September 8, 2023, Del Mar TIC I, LLC and Del Mar TIC II, LLC (together, “Del Mar”) filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, captioned Del Mar TIC I, LLC and Del Mar TIC II, LLC, Plaintiffs v. The Bancorp Bank, Defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank improperly and unreasonably force-placed excessive insurance coverage on real property that serves as security for a loan from the Bank to Del Mar, and that the Bank is improperly paying the related insurance premiums from escrow funds. The complaint asserts five causes of action: (i) declaratory judgment; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) breach of contract: implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) breach of contract: escrow account; and (v) injunctive relief. On October 12, 2023, the Bank removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bank intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company is unable to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations. In addition, we are a party to various routine legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Management believes that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operations.

Legal

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2023

Note 14. Legal

On June 12, 2019, the Bank was served with a qui tam lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. The Delaware Department of Justice intervened in the litigation. The case is titled The State of Delaware, Plaintiff, Ex rel. Russell S. Rogers, Plaintiff-Relator, v. The Bancorp Bank, Interactive Communications International, Inc., and InComm Financial Services, Inc., Defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Delaware False Claims Act by not paying balances on certain open-loop “Vanilla” prepaid cards to the State of Delaware as unclaimed property. The complaint seeks actual and treble damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. The Bank has filed an answer denying the allegations and continues to vigorously defend against the claims. The Bank and other defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss the action, but the motion was denied and the case is in preliminary stages of discovery. The Company is unable to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

On January 12, 2021, three former employees of the Bank filed separate complaints against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The Company subsequently removed all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The cases are captioned: John Edward Barker, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp, Inc., Defendant; Alexander John Kamai, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp, Inc., Defendant; and John Patrick McGlynn III, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp, Inc., Defendant. The lawsuits arise from the Bank’s termination of the plaintiffs’ employment in connection with the restructuring of its CMBS business. The plaintiffs sought damages in the following amounts: $4,135,142 (Barker), $901,088 (Kamai) and $2,909,627 (McGlynn). On June 11, 2021, the Company filed a consolidated motion to dismiss in each case. On February 25, 2022, the court granted the Company’s motion in part, dismissing McGlynn’s claims in entirety and most of Barker and Kamai’s claims. The sole claims remaining are Barker and Kamai’s breach of implied contract claims related to an unpaid bonus, for which they seek $2,000,000 and $300,000, respectively. On September 29, 2022, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in both matters. On September 8, 2023, the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment closing both cases. The Company now considers these matters resolved.

On September 14, 2021, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”) filed an adversary proceeding against the Bank in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, titled Cachet Financial Services, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp Bank, et al., Defendants. The case was filed within the context of Cachet’s pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The Bank previously served as the Originating Depository Financial Institution (“ODFI”) for automated clearing house (“ACH”) transactions in connection with Cachet’s payroll services business. The matter arises from the Bank’s termination of its Payroll Processing ODFI Agreement with Cachet on October 23, 2019, for safety and soundness reasons. The initial complaint alleges eight causes of action: (i) breach of contract; (ii) negligence; (iii) intentional interference with contract; (iv) conversion; (v) express indemnity; (vi) implied indemnity; (vii) accounting;

and (viii) objection to the Bank’s proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. On November 4, 2021, the Bank filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Central District of California to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court, which was denied in February 2023. On August 3, 2022, Cachet served the Bank with a First Amended Complaint wherein Cachet, among other things, withdraws its implied indemnity claim against the Bank and adds several defendants unaffiliated with the Bank and causes of action related to those parties. As to the Bank, Cachet seeks approximately $150 million in damages, an accounting and disallowance of the Bank’s proof of claim. The Bank is vigorously defending against these claims. On September 28, 2022, the Bank filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking to dispose of the majority of Cachet’s claims against the Bank. The motion is still pending before the bankruptcy court. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or operations.

On March 27, 2023, the Bank received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) seeking documents and information related to the Bank’s escheatment practices in connection with certain accounts offered through one of the Bank’s program partners. The Bank continues to cooperate with the CFPB, including by responding to the CID. While the Company remains confident in the Bank’s escheatment practices, it cannot predict the timing or final outcome of the investigation. Future costs related to this matter may be material and could continue to be material at least through the completion of the investigation.

On September 8, 2023, Del Mar TIC I, LLC and Del Mar TIC II, LLC (together, “Del Mar”) filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, captioned Del Mar TIC I, LLC and Del Mar TIC II, LLC, Plaintiffs v. The Bancorp Bank, Defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank improperly and unreasonably force-placed excessive insurance coverage on real property that serves as security for a loan from the Bank to Del Mar, and that the Bank is improperly paying the related insurance premiums from escrow funds. The complaint asserts five causes of action: (i) declaratory judgment; (ii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iii) breach of contract: implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) breach of contract: escrow account; and (v) injunctive relief. On October 12, 2023, the Bank removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bank intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company is unable to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

In addition, we are a party to various routine legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Management believes that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operations.