Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Operating Lease Commitments

For discussion regarding the Company’s operating lease commitments, see “Note 17. Leases.”

Loan Purchase Obligation

Prior to the acquisition of Radius, under the Company’s loan account program with WebBank, which served as the Company’s primary issuing bank for loans facilitated through the Company’s platform, WebBank retained ownership of the loans it originated for two business days after origination. As part of this arrangement, the Company was committed to purchase any loans that have been fully approved at par plus accrued interest, at the conclusion of the two business days. As of December 31, 2020, the Company was committed to purchase loans with an outstanding principal balance of $13.8 million at par. The Company was not committed to purchase any such loans as of June 30, 2021 as it now originates loans and no longer has a loan account program with WebBank.

Loan Repurchase Obligations

The Company is generally required to repurchase loans or interests therein in the event of identity theft or certain other types of fraud on the part of the borrower or education and patient service providers. The Company may also repurchase loans or interests therein in connection with certain customer accommodations. In connection with certain whole loan and Certificate Program sales, as well as to facilitate access to securitization markets, the Company agreed to repurchase loans if representations and warranties made with respect to such loans were breached under certain circumstances. In the case of certain securitization transactions, the Company also agreed to repurchase or substitute loans for which a borrower failed to make the first payment due under a loan. The Company believes such provisions are customary and consistent with institutional loan and securitization market standards.

In addition to and distinct from the repurchase obligations described in the preceding paragraph, the Company performed certain administrative functions for a variety of retail and institutional investors, including executing, without discretion, loan investments as directed by the investor. To the extent loans did not meet the investor’s investment criteria at the time of issuance, or were transferred to the investor as a result of a system error by the Company, the Company repurchased such loans or interests therein at par.

As a result of the loan repurchase obligations described above, the Company repurchased $0.4 million and $1.9 million in loans or interests therein during the first halves of 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

If the Company could not arrange for other investors to invest in or purchase loans that the Company facilitated and that were originated by an issuing bank partner but did not meet the credit criteria for purchase by the issuing bank partner, the Company was contractually committed to purchase those loans. As of both June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Company had a $9.0 million deposit in a bank account to secure potential future purchases of these loans, if necessary. The funds are recorded as restricted cash on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

During the first halves of 2021 and 2020, the Company was required to purchase $15.1 million and $21.5 million of loans facilitated by the Company or Springstone Financial LLC (a previously held wholly-owned subsidiary of LendingClub), respectively. These purchased loans are held on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and have a fair value of $14.2 million and $4.5 million as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively.

Unfunded Loan Commitments

Unfunded commitments and unused lines of credit at their contractual amounts were as follows:


	June 30, 2021
	Fixed		Variable		Total
Commitments to extend credit	$	3,529	$	62,326	$	65,855
Lines of credit	$	4,805	$	36,809	$	41,614

Legal

The Company is subject to various claims brought in a litigation or regulatory context. These matters include lawsuits and federal regulatory litigation, including but not limited to putative class action lawsuits, derivative lawsuits, and litigation with the FTC. In addition, the Company is subject to federal or state regulatory examinations, investigations, or actions relating to the Company’s business practices or licensing. It is also party to a number of routine litigation matters arising in the ordinary course of business. The majority of these claims and proceedings relate to or arise from alleged state or federal law and regulatory violations, or are alleged commercial disputes or consumer complaints. The Company accrues for costs related to contingencies when a loss from such claims is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In determining whether a loss from a claim is probable and the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company reviews and evaluates its litigation and regulatory matters on at least a quarterly basis in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. If the Company determines an unfavorable outcome is not probable or the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company does not accrue for a potential litigation loss. In those situations, the Company discloses an estimate or range of the reasonably possible losses, if such estimates can be made. Except as otherwise specifically noted below, at this time, the Company does not believe that it is possible to estimate the reasonably possible losses or a range of reasonably possible losses related to the matters described below.

FTC Lawsuit

In 2016, the Company received a formal request for information from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC commenced an investigation concerning certain of the Company’s policies and practices and related legal compliance.

On April 25, 2018, the FTC filed a complaint in the Northern District of California (FTC v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:18-cv-02454) alleging causes of action for violations of the FTC Act, including claims of deception in connection with disclosures related to the origination fee associated with loans available through the Company’s platform, and in connection with communications relating to the likelihood of loan approval during the application process, and a claim of unfairness relating to certain unauthorized charges to borrowers’ bank accounts. The FTC’s complaint also alleged a violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act regarding the Company’s practices in delivering its privacy notice. Following the Court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by the Company, the FTC filed an amended complaint on October 22, 2018, which reasserted the same causes of action from the original complaint. On November 13, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. Following a motion by the FTC to strike certain affirmative defenses in the answer, the Company filed an amended answer in the case on May 29, 2019. The discovery period in the case is closed.

On February 27, 2020, both the Company and the FTC filed various motions with the Court, including motions to exclude expert testimony and motions for summary judgment as to some or all of the claims in the case. The FTC also filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in the case. These motions were heard by the Court on April 27, 2020. On June 1, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part both the Company’s

and the FTC’s motions for summary judgment. The Court also denied the motions to exclude expert testimony and granted in part and denied in part the FTC’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The FTC’s Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act claim has been dismissed from the case, but issues relating to the FTC’s three other claims will need to be tried. On July 30, 2020, the Company filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in two cases (F.T.C. v. Credit Bureau Center and AMG Capital Management, LLC v. F.T.C.) that raise the issue whether the FTC is entitled to seek monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. On August 20, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion to stay proceedings in the case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in the Credit Bureau Center and AMG Capital Management cases. As a result of this order, the trial that was scheduled for October 19, 2020 will need to be rescheduled at a later date following the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court has vacated its prior grant of review in the Credit Bureau Center case but heard oral argument in the AMG Capital Management case on January 13, 2021. The impact of the Supreme Court decision could impact our case which is why the trial was stayed pending the Supreme Court decision. On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of AMG Capital Management ordering that the FTC does not currently have the authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under the statute that is also applicable in our matter with the FTC. On July 14, 2021, the Company entered into an agreement with the FTC to conclude the FTC’s investigation and litigation (the Settlement). Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, LendingClub will make an $18 million payment for consumer remediation. The Settlement does not include any admission of liability, and LendingClub does not expect that the Settlement will impact its current operations. On July 19, 2021, the Court approved the Settlement and this matter is now concluded.

Class Action Lawsuit Following Announcement of FTC Litigation

In May 2018, following the announcement of the FTC’s litigation against the Company, putative shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s description of fees and compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings. On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint and adds additional allegations. That complaint was subsequently dismissed by the Court with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2019, which modified and added certain allegations and dropped one of the former officer defendants as a defendant in the case, but otherwise advanced the same causes of action. On June 12, 2020, the Court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss by defendants without leave to amend, in part, and with leave to amend, in part. On July 27, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court indicating their intention not to file a Third Amended Complaint and requesting that the Court enter judgment. The Court entered judgment and dismissed all claims in the case the same day. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court has scheduled oral arguments for the appeal for September 2, 2021. The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations in the case. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter.

Derivative Litigation Following FTC Lawsuit

In August 2019, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Fisher v. Sanborn, et al., Case No. 2019-0631) against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors and naming the Company as a nominal defendant. This lawsuit accuses the individual defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately monitor the Company and prevent it from engaging in the purported regulatory violations alleged by the FTC and by causing the Company to make allegedly false and misleading public statements (as alleged in the Veal action). The lawsuit also alleges that certain of the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by selling Company shares while in possession of material, non-public information. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the case, which was granted by the Court. The plaintiff appealed this ruling, but then voluntarily dismissed the case on June 3, 2021. This matter is now concluded.

Regulatory Examinations and Actions Relating to the Company’s Business Practices and Licensing

The Company has been subject to periodic inquiries and enforcement actions brought by federal and state regulatory agencies relating to the Company’s business practices, the required licenses to operate its business, and its manner of operating in accordance with the requirements of its licenses. In the past, the Company has successfully resolved inquiries in a manner that was not material to its results of financial operations in any period and that did not materially limit the Company’s ability to conduct its business.

The Company is routinely subject to examination for compliance with applicable laws and regulations in the states in which it is licensed. As of the date of this Report, the Company is subject to examination by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and other regulators. The Company periodically has discussions with various regulatory agencies regarding its business model and has engaged in similar discussions with the NYDFS. During the course of such discussions with the NYDFS, which remain ongoing, the Company decided to voluntarily comply with certain rules and regulations of the NYDFS. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter or others if or as they arise.

Putative Class Actions

In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153). The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law based on allegations that LendingClub recorded a call with plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded. Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by LendingClub without their knowledge and consent. LendingClub filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiff’s claims, strike nationwide class allegations, and, alternatively, to stay the litigation. Rather than oppose that motion, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company again filed a motion to stay, or alternatively to dismiss certain of the claims in the amended complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations. That motion was heard by the Court on July 9, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Company’s motion to stay plaintiff’s California claims pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in a case involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.), dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s claim under Massachusetts law, and denying the Company’s motion to strike plaintiff’s nationwide class allegations. In April 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the LoanMe case in a manner that permits plaintiff’s claims in our case to continue. The Company has since filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint and discovery has begun. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter.

In February 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Bradford v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 4:21-cv-00588). The lawsuit asserts a cause of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) based on allegations that the Company obtained plaintiff’s credit report without his consent or authorization and without a permissible purpose under the FCRA. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated persons in the case and seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, among other relief. Plaintiff has amended the complaint to assert additional allegations regarding the Company’s purported requests for plaintiff’s credit report from another credit reporting agency. The Company has since filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint and discovery has begun. The Court has called this matter to trial in September 2022. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter.

California Private Attorneys General Lawsuit

In September 2018, a putative action under the California Private Attorney General Act was brought against the Company in the California Superior Court (Brott v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., CGC-18-570047) alleging violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint by a former employee alleges that the Company improperly failed to pay certain hourly employees for all wages owed, pay the correct rate of pay including overtime, and

provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff and aggrieved employees are entitled to recover civil penalties under the California Labor Code. The parties have reached a resolution of this matter, the terms of which are not material to the Company’s financial position or results of operations. In May 2021, the Court approved the settlement and this matter is now concluded.

Certain Financial Considerations Relating to Litigation and Investigations

With respect to the matters discussed above, the Company had $21.3 million and $21.6 million in accrued contingent liabilities at June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively, which amounts include the $18 million settlement with the FTC.

In addition to the foregoing, the Company is subject to, and may continue to be subject to, legal proceedings and regulatory actions in the ordinary course of business. No assurance can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of any of these matters.