

NOTE 17 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

The Corporation is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers.

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as 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. Since a portion of the commitments is expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Corporation evaluates each customer’s creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral, if any, obtained upon extension of credit is based on management’s credit evaluation of the customer. Collateral held varies but may include accounts receivable, inventory, property, equipment and income producing commercial properties. The Corporation records a reserve for unfunded commitments, included in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, which represents management’s estimate of losses inherent in these commitments. See "Note 4 - Loans and Allowance for Credit Losses," for additional information.

Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued to guarantee the financial or performance obligation of a customer to a third party. Commercial letters of credit are conditional commitments issued to facilitate foreign and domestic trade transactions for customers. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is similar to that involved in extending loan facilities. These obligations are underwritten consistently with commercial lending standards. The maximum exposure to loss for standby and commercial letters of credit is equal to the contractual (or notional) amount of the instruments.

The following table presents commitments to extend credit and letters of credit:



	2016		2015
	(in thousands)
Commercial and other	$	3,673,815	$	3,518,960
Home equity	1,368,465		1,300,062
Commercial mortgage and construction	1,033,287		965,116
Total commitments to extend credit	$	6,075,567	$	5,784,138

Standby letters of credit	$	356,359	$	374,729
Commercial letters of credit	38,901		39,529
Total letters of credit	$	395,260	$	414,258

Residential Lending

Residential mortgages are originated and sold by the Corporation and consist primarily of conforming, prime loans sold to government sponsored agencies such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). The Corporation also sells certain residential mortgages to non-government sponsored agency investors.

The Corporation provides customary representations and warranties to government sponsored agencies and investors that specify, among other things, that the loans have been underwritten to the standards established by the government sponsored agency or investor. The Corporation may be required to repurchase a loan or reimburse the government sponsored agency or investor for a credit loss incurred on a loan, if it is determined that the representations and warranties have not been met. Such repurchases or reimbursements generally result from an underwriting or documentation deficiency. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, total outstanding repurchase requests totaled approximately $543,000.

From 2000 to 2011, the Corporation sold loans to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh under its Mortgage Partnership Finance Program ("MPF Program"). No loans were sold under this program since 2011. The Corporation provided a "credit enhancement" for residential mortgage loans sold under the MPF Program whereby it would assume credit losses in excess of a defined "First Loss Account," or "FLA" balance, up to specified amounts. The FLA is funded by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh based on a percentage of the outstanding principal balance of loans sold. As of December 31, 2016, the unpaid principal balance of loans sold under the MPF Program was approximately $104 million. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the reserves for estimated credit losses related to loans sold under the MPF Program were $1.7 million and $1.8 million, respectively. Required reserves are calculated based on delinquency status and estimated loss rates established through the Corporation's existing allowance for credit loss methodology for residential mortgage loans.

As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the reserve for losses on residential mortgage loans sold was $2.5 million and $2.6 million, respectively, including both reserves for credit losses under the MPF Program and reserves for representation and warranty exposures. Management believes that the reserves recorded as of December 31, 2016 are adequate. However, declines in collateral values, the identification of additional loans to be repurchased, or a deterioration in the credit quality of loans sold under the MPF Program could necessitate additional reserves, established through charges to earnings, in the future.

Legal Proceedings

The Corporation and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business of the Corporation. The Corporation periodically evaluates the possible impact of pending litigation matters based on, among other factors, the advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and recorded liabilities and reserves for probable legal liabilities and costs. In addition, from time to time, the Corporation is the subject of investigations or other forms of regulatory or governmental inquiry covering a range of possible issues and, in some cases, these may be part of similar reviews of the specified activities of other industry participants. These inquiries could lead to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings, and could possibly result in fines, penalties, restitution or the need to alter the Corporation’s business practices, and cause the Corporation to incur additional costs. The Corporation’s practice is to cooperate fully with regulatory and governmental investigations.

As of the date of this report, the Corporation believes that any liabilities, individually or in the aggregate, which may result from the final outcomes of pending proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Corporation. However, legal proceedings are often unpredictable, and it is possible that the ultimate resolution of any such matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the Corporation’s results of operations for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the size of the loss or liability imposed and the operating results for the applicable period.

BSA/AML Enforcement Orders

The Corporation and each of its bank subsidiaries are subject to regulatory enforcement orders issued during 2014 and 2015 by their respective federal and state bank regulatory agencies relating to identified deficiencies in the Corporation’s centralized Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance program (the "BSA/AML Compliance Program"), which was designed to comply with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and related anti-money laundering regulations (collectively, the "BSA/AML Requirements"). The regulatory enforcement orders, which are in the form of consent orders or orders to cease and desist issued upon consent ("Consent Orders"), generally require, among other things, that the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries undertake a number of required actions to strengthen and enhance the BSA/AML Compliance Program, and, in some cases, conduct retrospective reviews of past account activity and transactions, as well as certain reports filed in accordance with the BSA/AML Requirements, to determine whether suspicious activity and certain transactions in currency were properly identified and reported in accordance with the BSA/AML Requirements. In addition to requiring strengthening and enhancement of the BSA/AML Compliance Program, while the Consent Orders remain in effect, the Corporation is subject to certain restrictions on expansion activities of the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries. Further, any failure to comply with the requirements of any of the Consent Orders involving the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries could result in further enforcement actions, the imposition of material restrictions on the activities of the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries, or the assessment of fines or penalties.

Fair Lending Investigation

During the second quarter of 2015, Fulton Bank, N.A., the Corporation’s largest bank subsidiary, received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (the "Department") indicating that the Department had initiated an investigation regarding potential violations of fair lending laws (specifically, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act) by Fulton Bank, N.A. in certain geographies. Fulton Bank, N.A. has been and is cooperating with the Department and responding to the Department’s requests for information. During the third quarter of 2016, the Department informed the Corporation, Fulton Bank, N.A., and three of the Corporation’s other bank subsidiaries, Fulton Bank of New Jersey, The Columbia Bank and Lafayette Ambassador Bank, that the Department was expanding its investigation of potential lending discrimination on the basis of race and national origin to encompass additional geographies that were not included in the initial letter from the Department. In addition to requesting information concerning the lending activities of these bank subsidiaries, the Department also requested information concerning the Corporation and the residential mortgage lending activities conducted under the Fulton Mortgage Company brand, the trade name used by all of the Corporation’s bank subsidiaries for residential mortgage lending. The investigation relates to lending activities during the period January 1, 2009 to the present. The Corporation and the identified bank subsidiaries are cooperating with the Department and responding to the Department’s requests for information. The Corporation and its bank subsidiaries are not able at this time to determine the terms on which this investigation will be resolved or the timing of such resolution, or to reliably estimate the amounts of any settlement, fines or other penalties or the cost of any other remedial actions, if enforcement action is taken. In addition, should the investigation result in an enforcement action against the Corporation or its bank subsidiaries, or a settlement with the Department, the ability of the Corporation and its bank subsidiaries to engage in certain expansion or other activities may be restricted.

Agostino, et al. Litigation

Fulton Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), the Corporation’s largest bank subsidiary, and two unrelated, third-party defendants, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (“Ameriprise”) and Riverview Bank (“Riverview”), have been named as defendants in a lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of 67 plaintiffs filed on March 31, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (Agostino, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., et al., No. 2016-CV-2048-CV). The plaintiffs in this action, who are individuals, trustees of certain irrevocable trusts, or the executors of the estates of deceased individuals, were clients of Jeffrey M. Mottern, a now-deceased attorney, who is alleged to have operated a fraud scheme over a period of years through the sale of fictitious high-yield investments or by otherwise misappropriating funds entrusted to Mr. Mottern. Mr. Mottern is alleged to have used the proceeds of these activities to engage in speculative securities trading through defendant Ameriprise, which caused significant losses, and for Mr. Mottern’s personal expenses. The allegations against the Bank relate to a commercial checking account at the Bank maintained by Mr. Mottern in connection with Mr. Mottern’s law practice. The lawsuit alleges that the Bank is liable to the plaintiffs for failing to properly monitor Mr. Mottern’s checking account and detect Mr. Mottern’s fraudulent activity, and specifically alleges that the Bank aided and abetted Mr. Mottern’s: (1) fraud; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (4) conversion. Similar claims have been asserted against Ameriprise and Riverview, which allegedly maintained a personal brokerage account and a trust account for client or other third-party funds, respectively, for Mr. Mottern. The lawsuit seeks damages from the defendants, including the Bank, alleged to be in excess of $11.3 million, treble damages and attorneys’ fees with respect to alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, punitive damages, plus interest and costs. On April 29, 2016, the Bank filed a Notice of Removal to remove this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the lawsuit to the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2016, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the lawsuit was remanded back to the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County. All defendants subsequently filed preliminary objections to the Complaint, including objections that, if granted, would result in dismissal of the case.