Loss Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Loss Contingencies

LOSS CONTINGENCIES

Loss contingencies, including claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, are recorded as liabilities when the likelihood of loss is probable and an amount or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. Management does not believe there are any such matters that will have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements that are not currently accrued for. However, in light of the uncertainties inherent in these matters, it is possible that the ultimate resolution may have a material adverse effect on Customers’ results of operations for a particular period, and future changes in circumstances or additional information could result in accruals or resolution in excess of established accruals, which could adversely affect Customers’ results of operations, potentially materially.

Lifestyle Healthcare Group, Inc. Matter

On January 9, 2017, Lifestyle Healthcare Group, Inc., et al (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint captioned Lifestyle Healthcare Group, Inc.; Fred Rappaport; Victoria Rappaport; Lifestyle Management Group, LLC Trading as Lifestyle Real Estate I, LP; Lifestyle Real Estate I GP, LLC; Daniel Muck; Lifestyle Management Group, LLC; Lifestyle Management Group, LLC Trading as Lifestyle I, LP D/B/A Lifestyle Medspa, Plaintiffs v. Customers Bank, Robert White; Saldutti Law, LLC a/k/a Saldutti Law Group; Robert L. Saldutti, Esquire; and Michael Fuoco, Civil Action No. 01206, in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. In this Complaint, the Plaintiffs generally allege wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process in connection with a case filed and later dismissed in federal court, titled, Customers Bank v. Fred Rappaport, et al., U.S.D.C.E.D. Pa., No. 15-6145. On January 30, 2017, Customers Bank filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Customers Bank and Robert White, named as co-defendants. In response to the Preliminary Objections, Lifestyle filed an Amended Complaint against Customers Bank and Robert White. Customers Bank has filed Preliminary Objections to the Second Amended Complaint seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's claim against Customers Bank and Robert White, named as co-defendants. The Court has dismissed certain counts and determined to allow certain other counts to proceed. Customers Bank intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations but is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

United States Department of Education Matter

In third quarter 2018, Customers received a Final Program Review Determination ("FPRD") letter dated September 5, 2018 from the DOE regarding a focused program review of Higher One's/Customers Bank's administration, as a third party servicer, of the programs authorized pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The DOE program review covered the award years beginning in 2013 through the FPRD issuance date, including the time period when Higher One was acting as the third party servicer prior to Customers' acquisition of the Disbursement business on June 15, 2016. The FPRD determined that, with respect to students enrolled at specified partner institutions, Higher One/Customers did not provide convenient fee-free access to ATMs or bank branch offices in such locations as required by the DOE’s cash management regulations. Those regulations, which were in effect during the period covered by the program review and were revised during that period, seek, among other purposes, to ensure that students can make fee-free cash withdrawals.  The FPRD determined that students incurred prohibited costs in accessing Title IV credit balance funds, and the FPRD classifies those costs as financial liabilities of Customers. The FPRD also requires Customers to take prospective action to increase ATM access for students at certain of its partner institutions. Customers disagreed with the FPRD and appealed the asserted financial liabilities of $6.5 million, and a request for review has been submitted to trigger an administrative process before the DOE’s Office of Hearing and Appeals.

On March 26, 2020, the DOE and Customers filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (the "Joint Motion") with the United States Department of Education. The Joint Motion states that the DOE and Customers reached an agreement that resolves the liabilities at issue in the appeal. The Joint Motion was granted on April 27, 2020. As part of the settlement, the liabilities assessed in the FPRD were reduced to $3.0 million (the "settlement amount"). Customers had previously recorded a liability in the amount of $1.0 million during third quarter 2019 and increased its liability by an additional $1.0 million in first quarter 2020. The remaining $1.0 million is expected to be funded from funds in an escrow account set-up at the time of Customers' acquisition of the Disbursement business from Higher One in 2016.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service Notice of Direct Debit (U.S. Treasury Check Reclamation)

On June 21, 2019, Customers received a Notice of Direct Debit (U.S. Treasury Check Reclamation) from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“Reclamation Notice”). The Reclamation Notice represented a demand to Customers for the return of funds on a U.S. Treasury check for approximately $5.4 million. Customers filed a written protest pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, Chapter II, Part 240, which resulted in a suspension of the direct debit by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. On January 31, 2020, Customers received an Abandonment Notice from the Bureau of Fiscal Service instructing Customers to disregard the Notice of Direct Debit as the Bureau of Fiscal Service would not be seeking reclamation of these funds.