10) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Notes
10) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies	`10)`Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies Reinsurance The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranged from $25,000 to $100,000 during the years 2019 and 2018. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies having insurance in force amounting to approximately $99,000,000 and approximately $103,000,000 at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements Future loan losses can be extremely difficult to estimate. However, the Company believes that its reserve methodology and its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate potential losses on loans sold. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the balances were $4,046,000 and $3,605,000, respectively. During the period from 2006 to 2019, over $60 million has been reserved for loan losses. A large majority of that reserve has been used to settle investor claims or potential claims on alternative documentation loans originated between 2005 to 2007. As the time since the origination of these loans has increased, estimating the potential of a claim being made, when it might be made, the validity of the claim, and the amount of such claim becomes more difficult. However, because some loans remain from the original 2005 to 2007 time period that have not been settled, the Company still includes a reserve for the potential of future loan demands and potential settlements of such loans. As of December 31, 2019, the loan loss reserve includes an estimate of approximately $3,000,000 for remaining losses still to be settled on loans from this time period with a general reserve for more recent loan production. Thus, the Company believes that the final loan loss reserve as of December 31, 2019, represents its best estimate for adequate loss reserves on loans sold. Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation Lehman Brothers Holdings Litigation – Delaware and New York In January 2014, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) entered into a settlement with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) concerning the mortgage loan claims that Fannie Mae had asserted against Lehman Holdings, which were based on alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties by Lehman Holdings in the mortgage loans it had sold to Fannie Mae. Lehman Holdings had acquired these loans from Aurora Bank, FSB, formerly known as Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which in turn purchased the loans from residential mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage Company (“SecurityNational Mortgage”). A settlement based on similar circumstances was entered into between Lehman Holdings and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) in February 2014. Lehman Holdings filed a motion in May 2014 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York to require the mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, to engage in non-binding mediations of the alleged indemnification claims against the mortgage loan originators relative to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac settlements with Lehman Holdings. The mediation was not successful in resolving any issues between SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings. On January 26, 2016, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a declaratory judgment action against Lehman Holdings in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In the Delaware action, SecurityNational Mortgage asserted its right to obtain a declaration of rights in that there are allegedly millions of dollars in dispute with Lehman Holdings pertaining to approximately 136 mortgage loans. SecurityNational Mortgage sought a declaratory judgment as to its rights as it contends that it has no liability to Lehman Holdings as a result of Lehman Holdings’ settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lehman Holdings filed a motion in the Delaware court seeking to stay or dismiss the declaratory judgment action. On August 24, 2016, the Court ruled that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the action and granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to dismiss. On February 3, 2016, Lehman Holdings filed an adversary proceeding against approximately 150 mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration of rights similar in nature to the declaration that SecurityNational Mortgage sought in its Delaware lawsuit, and for damages relating to the alleged obligations of the defendants under indemnification provisions of the alleged agreements, in amounts to be determined at trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Lehman Holdings in enforcing the obligations of the defendants. No response was required to be filed relative to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint dated March 7, 2016. A Case Management Order was entered on November 1, 2016. On December 27, 2016, pursuant to the Case Management Order, Lehman Holdings filed a Second Amended Complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage, which eliminates the declaratory judgment claim but retains a similar claim for damages as in the Complaint. Many of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion in the case asserting that the Bankruptcy Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction concerning the matter and that venue is improper. Lehman Holdings’ response memorandum was filed on May 31, 2017 and a reply memorandum of the defendants filing the motion was filed on July 14, 2017. A hearing on the motion was held on June 12, 2018. On August 13, 2018, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order (“Decision”) denying the motion. On August 27, 2018, a number of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion with the United States District Court (Case No. 18-mc-00392(VEC)) requesting that the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision be treated as findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for the District Court to review the Decision de novo as to jurisdiction. Included with the motion were proposed objections to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision. On September 18, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed its response to the joint motion, and defendants’ reply was filed on October 2, 2018. On September 17, 2018, certain defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, also filed a notice of appeal, and thereafter a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision pertaining to jurisdiction and improper venue as a “protective” appeal should the District Court decide not to treat the Decision as findings of fact and conclusions of law. Separately, certain other defendants also filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal with respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision concerning improper venue. Lehman Holdings filed its response on October 22, 2018, and defendants filed a joint reply to Lehman Holdings’ response on November 26, 2018. The motions to file appeals were consolidated before Valerie Caproni, U.S. District Court Judge, Case No. 18-cv-08986 (VEC). Case No. 18-mc-00392 (VEC) was also before Judge Caproni. On October 1, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed a motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaints against numerous defendants including SecurityNational Mortgage. In addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans, the amendments and supplements include additional mortgage loans sold to Lehman Holdings that were packaged for securitization (“RMBS loans”). The RMBS loans had allegedly been sold by defendants to Lehman Bank that, in turn, sold them to Lehman Holdings. The allegations pertaining to the RMBS loans include, e.g., purported breaches of representations and warranties made to the securitization trusts by Lehman Holdings. Lehman Holdings asserts that it made representations and warranties purportedly based in part by representations and warranties made to Lehman Bank by loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage. On May 8, 2019, Judge Caproni issued her Opinion and Order denying the motion for an interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s ruling relative to jurisdiction and venue. Further, the judge denied the motion for immediate de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s ruling indicating that de novo review can be left for the future. The alleged RMBS loans in dispute with SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly involve millions of dollars pertaining to approximately 577 mortgage loans in addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans. Lehman Holdings also moved the Court to simultaneously allow alternative dispute resolution procedures to take place including potential mediation. Over objections, at a hearing on October 29, 2018, the Court granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to amend or supplement its complaints adding the RMBS loans, and also to mandate alternative dispute resolution procedures affecting many defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage. Instead of filing a Third Amended Complaint to include the RMBS loans referenced above, Lehman Holdings filed the matter against SecurityNational Mortgage as a new complaint ("RMBS Complaint") (United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Adversary Proceeding 18-01819) pertaining to the approximately 577 RMBS loans, in addition to the Second Amended Complaint already on file. The RMBS Complaint seeks alleged damages relating to obligations under alleged contractual indemnification provisions in an amount to be determined at trial, interest, costs and expenses incurred by LBHI in enforcing alleged obligations, including attorneys' fees and costs and any expert witness fees incurred in litigation; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. SecurityNational Mortgage denies any liability to Lehman Holdings and intends to vigorously protect and defend its position. In response to a Court order, certain defendants referenced in the Second Amended Complaint and the RMBS Complaints negotiated with Lehman Holdings concerning an amended case management order pertaining to certain case procedures and management for both lawsuits including, but not limited to, timing for filing motions and answering the complaints, and provisions concerning discovery such as document production, taking depositions, and use of experts. At a hearing held on March 7, 2019, the Court considered differences of the parties as to the content of an amended case management order, and thereafter signed an amended case management order dated March 13, 2019. SecurityNational Mortgage filed an answer and amended answer in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac case, and in the RMBS case. Discovery is in process. Lehman Holdings sent an Indemnification Alternative Dispute Resolution Notice to SecurityNational Mortgage dated August 1, 2019. SecurityNational Mortgage sent its Statement of Position to Lehman Brothers Holdings dated September 3, 2019 in response to the notice. Thereafter, Lehman Holdings sent its Reply dated October 2, 2019 to SecurityNational Mortgage. On January 9, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage submitted further information to the mediator. Mediation was set to take place on January 23, 2020 in New York. On January 15, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss Lehman Holdings’ RMBS action in the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. It was not filed in the Bankruptcy Court but in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for general pretrial, which “includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement,” as well as for “a Report and Recommendation” as to the pending motion. The final disposition of the motion will be with the District Court judge. Lehman Holdings has asked the District Court to transfer the case to one of two other judges allegedly due to related matters. No action has been taken by the District Court on the request. However, a briefing schedule is in place before the original assigned magistrate judge. Lehman Holdings’ response brief to SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion is due March 6, 2020, and SecurityNational Mortgage’s reply brief is due April 6, 2020. In view of SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion to dismiss, Lehman Holdings requested that the mediation set for January 23, 2020 be adjourned “pending resolution of your [SecurityNational Mortgage] motion by the court.” On January 17, 2020, the mediator adjourned the scheduled mediation without a date. Non-Cancelable Leases The Company leases office space and equipment under various non-cancelable agreements. See Note 24 regarding leases. Other Contingencies and Commitments The Company has entered into commitments to fund construction and land development loans and has also provided financing for land acquisition and development. As of December 31, 2019, the Company’s commitments were approximately $123,601,000, for these loans of which $90,566,000 had been funded. The Company will advance funds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees and interest for these loans and the interest rate is generally fixed 5.50% to 8.00% per annum. Maturities range between six and eighteen months. The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captive insurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date. The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements. The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

10) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

10) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

10)Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

Reinsurance

The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranged from $25,000 to $100,000 during the years 2019 and 2018. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies having insurance in force amounting to approximately $99,000,000 and approximately $103,000,000 at December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.

Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements

Future loan losses can be extremely difficult to estimate. However, the Company believes that its reserve methodology and its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate potential losses on loans sold. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the balances were $4,046,000 and $3,605,000, respectively.

During the period from 2006 to 2019, over $60 million has been reserved for loan losses. A large majority of that reserve has been used to settle investor claims or potential claims on alternative documentation loans originated between 2005 to 2007. As the time since the origination of these loans has increased, estimating the potential of a claim being made, when it might be made, the validity of the claim, and the amount of such claim becomes more difficult. However, because some loans remain from the original 2005 to 2007 time period that have not been settled, the Company still includes a reserve for the potential of future loan demands and potential settlements of such loans. As of December 31, 2019, the loan loss reserve includes an estimate of approximately $3,000,000 for remaining losses still to be settled on loans from this time period with a general reserve for more recent loan production. Thus, the Company believes that the final loan loss reserve as of December 31, 2019, represents its best estimate for adequate loss reserves on loans sold.

Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation

Lehman Brothers Holdings Litigation – Delaware and New York

In January 2014, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) entered into a settlement with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) concerning the mortgage loan claims that Fannie Mae had asserted against Lehman Holdings, which were based on alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties by Lehman Holdings in the mortgage loans it had sold to Fannie Mae. Lehman Holdings had acquired these loans from Aurora Bank, FSB, formerly known as Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which in turn purchased the loans from residential mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage Company (“SecurityNational Mortgage”). A settlement based on similar circumstances was entered into between Lehman Holdings and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) in February 2014.

Lehman Holdings filed a motion in May 2014 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York to require the mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, to engage in non-binding mediations of the alleged indemnification claims against the mortgage loan originators relative to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac settlements with Lehman Holdings. The mediation was not successful in resolving any issues between SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings.

On January 26, 2016, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a declaratory judgment action against Lehman Holdings in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In the Delaware action, SecurityNational Mortgage asserted its right

to obtain a declaration of rights in that there are allegedly millions of dollars in dispute with Lehman Holdings pertaining to approximately 136 mortgage loans. SecurityNational Mortgage sought a declaratory judgment as to its rights as it contends that it has no liability to Lehman Holdings as a result of Lehman Holdings’ settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lehman Holdings filed a motion in the Delaware court seeking to stay or dismiss the declaratory judgment action. On August 24, 2016, the Court ruled that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the action and granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to dismiss.

On February 3, 2016, Lehman Holdings filed an adversary proceeding against approximately 150 mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration of rights similar in nature to the declaration that SecurityNational Mortgage sought in its Delaware lawsuit, and for damages relating to the alleged obligations of the defendants under indemnification provisions of the alleged agreements, in amounts to be determined at trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Lehman Holdings in enforcing the obligations of the defendants. No response was required to be filed relative to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint dated March 7, 2016. A Case Management Order was entered on November 1, 2016.

On December 27, 2016, pursuant to the Case Management Order, Lehman Holdings filed a Second Amended Complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage, which eliminates the declaratory judgment claim but retains a similar claim for damages as in the Complaint. Many of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion in the case asserting that the Bankruptcy Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction concerning the matter and that venue is improper. Lehman Holdings’ response memorandum was filed on May 31, 2017 and a reply memorandum of the defendants filing the motion was filed on July 14, 2017. A hearing on the motion was held on June 12, 2018.

On August 13, 2018, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order (“Decision”) denying the motion. On August 27, 2018, a number of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion with the United States District Court (Case No. 18-mc-00392(VEC)) requesting that the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision be treated as findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for the District Court to review the Decision de novo as to jurisdiction. Included with the motion were proposed objections to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision. On September 18, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed its response to the joint motion, and defendants’ reply was filed on October 2, 2018.

On September 17, 2018, certain defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, also filed a notice of appeal, and thereafter a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision pertaining to jurisdiction and improper venue as a “protective” appeal should the District Court decide not to treat the Decision as findings of fact and conclusions of law. Separately, certain other defendants also filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal with respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision concerning improper venue. Lehman Holdings filed its response on October 22, 2018, and defendants filed a joint reply to Lehman Holdings’ response on November 26, 2018. The motions to file appeals were consolidated before Valerie Caproni, U.S. District Court Judge, Case No. 18-cv-08986 (VEC). Case No. 18-mc-00392 (VEC) was also before Judge Caproni.

On October 1, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed a motion for leave to file Third Amended Complaints against numerous defendants including SecurityNational Mortgage. In addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans, the amendments and supplements include additional mortgage loans sold to Lehman Holdings that were packaged for securitization (“RMBS loans”). The RMBS loans had allegedly been sold by defendants to Lehman Bank that, in turn, sold them to Lehman Holdings. The allegations pertaining to the RMBS loans include, e.g., purported breaches of representations and warranties made to the securitization trusts by Lehman Holdings. Lehman Holdings asserts that it made representations and warranties purportedly based in part by representations and warranties made to Lehman Bank by loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage.

On May 8, 2019, Judge Caproni issued her Opinion and Order denying the motion for an interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s ruling relative to jurisdiction and venue. Further, the judge denied the motion for immediate de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s ruling indicating that de novo review can be left for the future.

The alleged RMBS loans in dispute with SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly involve millions of dollars pertaining to approximately 577 mortgage loans in addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans. Lehman Holdings also moved the Court to simultaneously allow alternative dispute resolution procedures to take place including potential mediation. Over objections, at a hearing on October 29, 2018, the Court granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to amend or supplement its complaints adding the RMBS loans, and also to mandate alternative dispute resolution procedures affecting many defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage.

Instead of filing a Third Amended Complaint to include the RMBS loans referenced above, Lehman Holdings filed the matter against SecurityNational Mortgage as a new complaint ("RMBS Complaint") (United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Adversary Proceeding 18-01819) pertaining to the approximately 577 RMBS loans, in addition to the Second Amended Complaint already on file. The RMBS Complaint seeks alleged damages relating to obligations under alleged contractual indemnification provisions in an amount to be determined at trial, interest, costs and expenses incurred by LBHI in enforcing alleged obligations, including attorneys' fees and costs and any expert witness fees incurred in litigation; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. SecurityNational Mortgage denies any liability to Lehman Holdings and intends to vigorously protect and defend its position.

In response to a Court order, certain defendants referenced in the Second Amended Complaint and the RMBS Complaints negotiated with Lehman Holdings concerning an amended case management order pertaining to certain case procedures and management for both lawsuits including, but not limited to, timing for filing motions and answering the complaints, and provisions concerning discovery such as document production, taking depositions, and use of experts. At a hearing held on March 7, 2019, the Court considered differences of the parties as to the content of an amended case management order, and thereafter signed an amended case management order dated March 13, 2019. SecurityNational Mortgage filed an answer and amended answer in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac case, and in the RMBS case. Discovery is in process.

Lehman Holdings sent an Indemnification Alternative Dispute Resolution Notice to SecurityNational Mortgage dated August 1, 2019. SecurityNational Mortgage sent its Statement of Position to Lehman Brothers Holdings dated September 3, 2019 in response to the notice. Thereafter, Lehman Holdings sent its Reply dated October 2, 2019 to SecurityNational Mortgage. On January 9, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage submitted further information to the mediator. Mediation was set to take place on January 23, 2020 in New York.

On January 15, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss Lehman Holdings’ RMBS action in the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. It was not filed in the Bankruptcy Court but in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for general pretrial, which “includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement,” as well as for “a Report and Recommendation” as to the pending motion. The final disposition of the motion will be with the District Court judge. Lehman Holdings has asked the District Court to transfer the case to one of two other judges allegedly due to related matters. No action has been taken by the District Court on the request.

However, a briefing schedule is in place before the original assigned magistrate judge. Lehman Holdings’ response brief to SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion is due March 6, 2020, and SecurityNational Mortgage’s reply brief is due April 6, 2020. In view of SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion to dismiss, Lehman Holdings requested that the mediation set for January 23, 2020 be adjourned “pending resolution of your [SecurityNational Mortgage] motion by the court.” On January 17, 2020, the mediator adjourned the scheduled mediation without a date.

Non-Cancelable Leases

The Company leases office space and equipment under various non-cancelable agreements. See Note 24 regarding leases.

Other Contingencies and Commitments

The Company has entered into commitments to fund construction and land development loans and has also provided financing for land acquisition and development. As of December 31, 2019, the Company’s commitments were approximately $123,601,000, for these loans of which $90,566,000 had been funded. The Company will advance funds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees and interest for these loans and the interest rate is generally fixed 5.50% to 8.00% per annum. Maturities range between six and eighteen months.

The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captive insurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date.

The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements.

The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.