Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Commitments* At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Bank had commitments to extend credit of approximately $694.4 million and $588.9 million, respectively, and obligations under letters of credit of $34.6 million and $37.0 million, respectively. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers, provided there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Commitments are generally variable rate, and many of these commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon. As such, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank uses the same credit underwriting policies in granting or accepting such commitments or contingent obligations as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments, which consist of evaluating customers’ creditworthiness individually. The Bank has a reserve for unfunded loan commitments of $7.8 million as of December 31, 2014 and $9.1 million as of December 31, 2013. Standby letters of credit written are conditional commitments issued by the Bank to guarantee the financial performance of a customer to a third party. Those guarantees are primarily issued to support private borrowing arrangements. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers. When deemed necessary, the Bank holds appropriate collateral supporting those commitments. Management does not anticipate any material losses as a result of these transactions. At December 31, 2014, the Bank has available lines of credit totaling $3.37 billion from correspondent banks, FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank of which $2.90 billion were secured. *Other Contingencies* Certain lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against us or our affiliates. Where appropriate, we establish reserves in accordance with FASB guidance over contingencies (ASC 450). The outcome of litigation and other legal and regulatory matters is inherently uncertain, however, and it is possible that one or more of the legal or regulatory matters currently pending or threatened could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, consolidated financial position, and/or results of operations. As of December 31, 2014, the Company does not have any litigation reserves. The Company is involved in the following significant legal actions and complaints. On July 26, 2010, we received a subpoena from the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company’s allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors or prospective investors. We have fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and we will continue to do so if and to the extent any further information is requested, although we have not been contacted by the SEC in connection with this matter since October 2011. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation or if it is still continuing. In the wake of the Company’s disclosure of the SEC investigation, on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the “Jacksonville Fund”) as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund’s selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs, and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013. Although the District Court’s most recent order of dismissal provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that the District Court convert its order to a dismissal with prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the District Court entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on October 24, 2013. With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on June 7, 2014, the Company’s reply brief was filed on July 7, 2014, and the plaintiff’s rebuttal brief was filed on August 20, 2014. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will schedule oral argument at some point within the next six to nine months, and would then issue its opinion at some point six to nine months thereafter. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff’s allegations in this case. On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v. Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior Court in San Bernardino County. The complaint names as defendants the members of our board of directors and also refers to unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged. The Company is included as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company’s financial results in connection with its commercial real estate portfolio. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other relief. On June 20, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint. Following the filing by each side of additional motions, the parties have subsequently filed repeated notices to postpone the Court’s hearing on the defendants’ demurrer, pending resolution of the federal securities shareholder class action complaint. On July 30, 2013, the Court signed a Minute Order agreeing to the parties’ stipulation to further extend the postponement of the derivative action hearing, at least to the date of any ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with the pending appeal in the federal class action securities case, subject to brief status conferences every six months or so, with the next status update scheduled for March 25, 2015. Because the outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, we cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is probable related to the actions described above.

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

At December 31, 2014 and 2013, the Bank had commitments to extend credit of approximately $694.4 million and $588.9 million, respectively, and obligations under letters of credit of $34.6 million and $37.0 million, respectively. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers, provided there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Commitments are generally variable rate, and many of these commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon. As such, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank uses the same credit underwriting policies in granting or accepting such commitments or contingent obligations as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments, which consist of evaluating customers’ creditworthiness individually. The Bank has a reserve for unfunded loan commitments of $7.8 million as of December 31, 2014 and $9.1 million as of December 31, 2013.

Standby letters of credit written are conditional commitments issued by the Bank to guarantee the financial performance of a customer to a third party. Those guarantees are primarily issued to support private borrowing arrangements. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers. When deemed necessary, the Bank holds appropriate collateral supporting those commitments. Management does not anticipate any material losses as a result of these transactions.

At December 31, 2014, the Bank has available lines of credit totaling $3.37 billion from correspondent banks, FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank of which $2.90 billion were secured.

Other Contingencies

Certain lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of business have been filed or are pending against us or our affiliates. Where appropriate, we establish reserves in accordance with FASB guidance over contingencies (ASC 450). The outcome of litigation and other legal and regulatory matters is inherently uncertain, however, and it is possible that one or more of the legal or regulatory matters currently pending or threatened could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, consolidated financial position, and/or results of operations. As of December 31, 2014, the Company does not have any litigation reserves.

The Company is involved in the following significant legal actions and complaints.

On July 26, 2010, we received a subpoena from the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company’s allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors or prospective investors. We have fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and we will continue to do so if and to the extent any further information is requested, although we have not been contacted by the SEC in connection with this matter since October 2011. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation or if it is still continuing.

In the wake of the Company’s disclosure of the SEC investigation, on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the “Jacksonville Fund”) as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund’s selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs, and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013.

Although the District Court’s most recent order of dismissal provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that the District Court convert its order to a dismissal with prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the District Court entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on October 24, 2013.

With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on June 7, 2014, the Company’s reply brief was filed on July 7, 2014, and the plaintiff’s rebuttal brief was filed on August 20, 2014. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will schedule oral argument at some point within the next six to nine months, and would then issue its opinion at some point six to nine months thereafter.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff’s allegations in this case.

On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v. Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior Court in San Bernardino County. The complaint names as defendants the members of our board of directors and also refers to unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged. The Company is included as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company’s financial results in connection with its commercial real estate portfolio. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other relief.

On June 20, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint. Following the filing by each side of additional motions, the parties have subsequently filed repeated notices to postpone the Court’s hearing on the defendants’ demurrer, pending resolution of the federal securities shareholder class action complaint. On July 30, 2013, the Court signed a Minute Order agreeing to the parties’ stipulation to further extend the postponement of the derivative action hearing, at least to the date of any ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with the pending appeal in the federal class action securities case, subject to brief status conferences every six months or so, with the next status update scheduled for March 25, 2015.

Because the outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, we cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is probable related to the actions described above.