Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	(17) Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Class Action Litigation On January 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court in McLennan County, Texas against the Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary and Värde purportedly on behalf of the Company’s stockholders, under the caption Eric J. Drayer v. James T. Sartain, et. al., Cause No. 2013-246-5. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with Värde’s proposal and that Värde, Parent and Merger Subsidiary have aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees and in the event the transaction is consummated, rescission of the transaction, rescissory damages and an accounting of all damages, profits and special benefits. On February 13, 2013, a first amended petition was filed. The amended petition alleged that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to maximize the value of the Company, (ii) taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, (iii) failing to properly value the Company and (iv) omitting material information and providing materially misleading information in the preliminary proxy statement, and sought the same relief and asserted the same claims as the original petition. On January 29, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary and Värde purportedly on behalf of the Company’s stockholders, under the caption Paul Perry v. FirstCity Financial Corporation, et. al., Case No. 8259-VCG. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders by entering into the merger agreement and that the Company, Värde, Parent and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees and in the event the transaction is consummated, rescission of the transaction and an accounting of all damages, profits and special benefits. On February 15, 2013, a first amended complaint was filed adding Värde Management, L.P. as a defendant. The amended complaint alleged that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to the merger consideration which undervalues the Company, (ii) agreeing to the terms of the merger agreement which deter other bidders and (iii) omitting material information and providing materially misleading information in the preliminary proxy statement, and sought the same relief and asserted the same claims as the original complaint. On April 10, 2013, the Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary, Värde and Värde Management, L.P., as defendants in the Perry lawsuit and the Drayer lawsuit, reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in such actions providing for the settlement of the actions on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the memorandum of understanding dated April 10, 2013, which was amended on April 22, 2013 (the “MOU”), which terms included, but are not limited to, an obligation by the Company to make certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement regarding the proposed transaction. If the settlement becomes effective, the attorneys for the plaintiff class will seek an award of attorney’s fees and expenses. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive settlement documentation, the completion of confirmatory discovery, dismissal of the actions, consummation of the proposed transaction and the approval of the Texas and Delaware courts. Upon effectiveness of the settlement, the Perry and Drayer lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims under federal and state law that were or could have been asserted in such suits or which arise out of or relate to the proposed transaction will be released by the plaintiff class. The defendants entered into the MOU to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction of further litigation. Investment Agreement with Värde Investment Partners, L.P. (“VIP”) FirstCity Diversified Holdings (“FC Diversified”) and FC Servicing, wholly-owned subsidiaries of FirstCity, and VIP, are parties to an investment agreement that provides, among other things, a “right of first refusal” provision to VIP. Pursuant to the investment agreement, FC Diversified and FC Servicing granted VIP a right of first refusal to participate in distressed asset investment opportunities in which the aggregate amount of the proposed investment is to exceed $3.0 million. FC Diversified and FC Servicing are required to follow a prescribed notice procedure pursuant to which VIP has the option to participate in a proposed investment, whether in the form of a direct purchase, equity investment or loan, by requiring that the purchase, acquisition or loan be effected through an acquisition entity formed by FC Diversified (or its affiliate) and VIP (or its affiliate). An affiliate of FC Diversified will own from 5% to 25% of the acquisition entity at FC Diversified’s determination. The investment agreement has a termination date of June 30, 2015, which is subject to consecutive automatic one-year extensions without any action by FC Diversified, FC Servicing and VIP. FC Servicing will be the servicer for all of the acquisition entities formed by FC Diversified and VIP (subject to removal by VIP on a pool-level basis under certain conditions). The parties may terminate the investment agreement prior to June 30, 2015 under certain conditions. Indemnification Obligation Commitments Strategic Mexican Investment Partners L.P. (“SMIP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstCity, Cargill Financial Services International Inc. (“CFSI”), and a Mexican acquisition partnership that is collectively owned by SMIP and CFSI (collectively, the “Sellers”), are parties to indemnification arrangements that originated in 2006 in connection with their respective sales of eleven Mexican portfolio entities to Bidmex Holding LLC (“Bidmex Holding”) and a loan portfolio to a Bidmex Holding subsidiary. Bidmex Holding is a Mexican acquisition partnership that was formed by certain subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG Entities”), as the 85%-majority owner, and SMIP, as the 15%-minority owner, to acquire the interests of the portfolio entities and loan portfolio from the Sellers. In connection with these sales transactions, the Sellers made various representations and warranties concerning (i) the existence and ownership of the portfolio entities, (ii) the assets and liabilities of the portfolio entities, (iii) taxes related to periods prior to the sales transaction date, (iv) the operations of the portfolio entities, and (v) the ownership of the loan portfolio and existence of the underlying loans. The Sellers agreed to indemnify Bidmex Holding and AIG Entities from damages resulting from a breach of these representation and warranty conditions according to their respective ownership percentages in each Mexican portfolio entity, or on the basis of 80% to CFSI and 20% to SMIP as to any matter that was not related to a particular portfolio entity. The indemnity obligation survives for a period of the statute of limitations for matters related to taxes, existence and authority, capitalization and good standing of the Mexican portfolio entities. The Sellers are not required to make any payments as a result of the indemnity provisions until the aggregate amount payable exceeds certain thresholds (ranging from $25,000 for the loan portfolio transaction to $250,000 for the Mexican portfolio entities transaction). However, claims related to taxes and fraud are not subject to these thresholds. At this time, management does not believe that this potential obligation will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity. Guarantees and Letters of Credit FC Commercial has a term loan facility with Bank of Scotland. The obligations under this loan facility are secured by substantially all assets and subsidiaries of FC Commercial (excluding FH Partners). FirstCity provides an unlimited guaranty for the repayment of the indebtedness under this loan facility. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid principal balance on this loan was $22.5 million. Refer to Note 7 for additional information. ABL has a $25.0 million revolving loan facility with WFCF. The obligations under this facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of ABL, and FirstCity provides WFCF with an unconditional guaranty on ABL’s obligations under the loan facility up to a maximum of $5.0 million plus enforcement cost. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid principal balance on this loan facility was $18.3 million. FC Investment has a $15.0 million revolving loan facility with FNBCT. The obligations under this facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of FC Investment and its subsidiaries. FirstCity provides an unlimited guaranty for the repayment of the indebtedness under this revolving loan facility. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid principal balance on this loan facility was $2.0 million. Refer to Note 7 for additional information. Certain of the Company’s consolidated subsidiaries provide guarantees to various financial institutions related to their financing arrangements with certain Acquisition Partnerships. The underlying financing arrangements of these Acquisitions Partnerships mature at various dates through September 2015, and are secured primarily by certain real estate properties held by the Acquisition Partnerships. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid debt obligations of these Acquisition Partnerships attributed to the underlying guarantees of the Company’s subsidiaries approximated $1.5 million. Fondo de Inversion Privado NPL Fund One (“PIF1”), an equity-method investment of FirstCity, has a credit facility with Banco Santander Chile, S.A. with an unpaid principal balance of $5.3 million at March 31, 2013. PIF1 uses the credit facility to finance the purchases of loan portfolios. Pursuant to terms of the credit facility, FirstCity was required to provide a stand-by letter of credit from Bank of Scotland that would satisfy the current loan balance upon demand. At March 31, 2013, FirstCity had a letter of credit in the amount of $5.0 million from Bank of Scotland under the terms of FirstCity’s loan facility with Bank of Scotland (see Note 7), with Banco Santander Chile, S.A. as the letter of credit beneficiary. In the event that a demand is made under the $5.0 million letter of credit, FirstCity would be required to reimburse Bank of Scotland by making payment to Bank of Scotland for all amounts disbursed or to be disbursed by Bank of Scotland under the letter of credit. Environmental Matters The Company generally retains environmental consultants to conduct or update environmental assessments in connection with the Company’s foreclosed and acquired real estate properties. These environmental assessments have not revealed environmental conditions that the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on its business, assets, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, and the Company is not otherwise aware of environmental conditions with respect to properties that the Company believes would have such a material adverse effect. However, from time to time, environmental conditions at the Company’s properties have required and may in the future require environmental testing and/or regulatory filings, as well as remedial action. Liabilities for future remediation costs are recorded when environmental assessments and/or remedial efforts are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Other than for assessments, the timing and magnitude of these accruals generally are based on the completion of investigations or other studies or a commitment to a formal plan of action. Income Taxes We are subject to income taxes in both the United States and the non-U.S. jurisdictions in which we operate. Certain of our entities are under examination by the relevant taxing authorities for various tax years. We regularly assess the potential outcome of current and future examinations in each of the taxing jurisdictions when determining the adequacy of the provision for income taxes. We have only recorded financial statement benefits for tax positions which we believe reflect the “more-likely-than-not” criteria incorporated in the FASB’s authoritative guidance on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, and we have established income tax reserves in accordance with this authoritative guidance where necessary. Once a financial statement benefit for a tax position is recorded or a tax reserve is established, we adjust it only when there is more information available or when an event occurs necessitating a change. While we believe that the amount of the recorded financial statement benefits and tax reserves reflect the more-likely-than-not criteria, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of current or future examinations may result in a reduction to the tax benefits previously recorded on the financial statements or may exceed the current income tax reserves in amounts that could be material.

(17) Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Class Action Litigation

On January 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court in McLennan County, Texas against the Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary and Värde purportedly on behalf of the Company’s stockholders, under the caption Eric J. Drayer v. James T. Sartain, et. al., Cause No. 2013-246-5. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders in connection with Värde’s proposal and that Värde, Parent and Merger Subsidiary have aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees and in the event the transaction is consummated, rescission of the transaction, rescissory damages and an accounting of all damages, profits and special benefits. On February 13, 2013, a first amended petition was filed. The amended petition alleged that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) failing to maximize the value of the Company, (ii) taking steps to avoid competitive bidding, (iii) failing to properly value the Company and (iv) omitting material information and providing materially misleading information in the preliminary proxy statement, and sought the same relief and asserted the same claims as the original petition.

On January 29, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary and Värde purportedly on behalf of the Company’s stockholders, under the caption Paul Perry v. FirstCity Financial Corporation, et. al., Case No. 8259-VCG. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders by entering into the merger agreement and that the Company, Värde, Parent and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees and in the event the transaction is consummated, rescission of the transaction and an accounting of all damages, profits and special benefits. On February 15, 2013, a first amended complaint was filed adding Värde Management, L.P. as a defendant. The amended complaint alleged that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i) agreeing to the merger consideration which undervalues the Company, (ii) agreeing to the terms of the merger agreement which deter other bidders and (iii) omitting material information and providing materially misleading information in the preliminary proxy statement, and sought the same relief and asserted the same claims as the original complaint.

On April 10, 2013, the Company, its directors, Parent, Merger Subsidiary, Värde and Värde Management, L.P., as defendants in the Perry lawsuit and the Drayer lawsuit, reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in such actions providing for the settlement of the actions on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the memorandum of understanding dated April 10, 2013, which was amended on April 22, 2013 (the “MOU”), which terms included, but are not limited to, an obligation by the Company to make certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement regarding the proposed transaction. If the settlement becomes effective, the attorneys for the plaintiff class will seek an award of attorney’s fees and expenses. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive settlement documentation, the completion of confirmatory discovery, dismissal of the actions, consummation of the proposed transaction and the approval of the Texas and Delaware courts. Upon effectiveness of the settlement, the Perry and Drayer lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all claims under federal and state law that were or could have been asserted in such suits or which arise out of or relate to the proposed transaction will be released by the plaintiff class. The defendants entered into the MOU to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction of further litigation.

Investment Agreement with Värde Investment Partners, L.P. (“VIP”)

FirstCity Diversified Holdings (“FC Diversified”) and FC Servicing, wholly-owned subsidiaries of FirstCity, and VIP, are parties to an investment agreement that provides, among other things, a “right of first refusal” provision to VIP. Pursuant to the investment agreement, FC Diversified and FC Servicing granted VIP a right of first refusal to participate in distressed asset investment opportunities in which the aggregate amount of the proposed investment is to exceed $3.0 million. FC Diversified and FC Servicing are required to follow a prescribed notice procedure pursuant to which VIP has the option to participate in a proposed investment, whether in the form of a direct purchase, equity investment or loan, by requiring that the purchase, acquisition or loan be effected through an acquisition entity formed by FC Diversified (or its affiliate) and VIP (or its affiliate). An affiliate of FC Diversified will own from 5% to 25% of the acquisition entity at FC Diversified’s determination. The investment agreement has a termination date of June 30, 2015, which is subject to consecutive automatic one-year extensions without any action by FC Diversified, FC Servicing and VIP. FC Servicing will be the servicer for all of the acquisition entities formed by FC Diversified and VIP (subject to removal by VIP on a pool-level basis under certain conditions). The parties may terminate the investment agreement prior to June 30, 2015 under certain conditions.

Indemnification Obligation Commitments

Strategic Mexican Investment Partners L.P. (“SMIP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstCity, Cargill Financial Services International Inc. (“CFSI”), and a Mexican acquisition partnership that is collectively owned by SMIP and CFSI (collectively, the “Sellers”), are parties to indemnification arrangements that originated in 2006 in connection with their respective sales of eleven Mexican portfolio entities to Bidmex Holding LLC (“Bidmex Holding”) and a loan portfolio to a Bidmex Holding subsidiary. Bidmex Holding is a Mexican acquisition partnership that was formed by certain subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG Entities”), as the 85%-majority owner, and SMIP, as the 15%-minority owner, to acquire the interests of the portfolio entities and loan portfolio from the Sellers. In connection with these sales transactions, the Sellers made various representations and warranties concerning (i) the existence and ownership of the portfolio entities, (ii) the assets and liabilities of the portfolio entities, (iii) taxes related to periods prior to the sales transaction date, (iv) the operations of the portfolio entities, and (v) the ownership of the loan portfolio and existence of the underlying loans. The Sellers agreed to indemnify Bidmex Holding and AIG Entities from damages resulting from a breach of these representation and warranty conditions according to their respective ownership percentages in each Mexican portfolio entity, or on the basis of 80% to CFSI and 20% to SMIP as to any matter that was not related to a particular portfolio entity. The indemnity obligation survives for a period of the statute of limitations for matters related to taxes, existence and authority, capitalization and good standing of the Mexican portfolio entities. The Sellers are not required to make any payments as a result of the indemnity provisions until the aggregate amount payable exceeds certain thresholds (ranging from $25,000 for the loan portfolio transaction to $250,000 for the Mexican portfolio entities transaction). However, claims related to taxes and fraud are not subject to these thresholds. At this time, management does not believe that this potential obligation will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or liquidity.

Guarantees and Letters of Credit

FC Commercial has a term loan facility with Bank of Scotland. The obligations under this loan facility are secured by substantially all assets and subsidiaries of FC Commercial (excluding FH Partners). FirstCity provides an unlimited guaranty for the repayment of the indebtedness under this loan facility. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid principal balance on this loan was $22.5 million. Refer to Note 7 for additional information.

ABL has a $25.0 million revolving loan facility with WFCF. The obligations under this facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of ABL, and FirstCity provides WFCF with an unconditional guaranty on ABL’s obligations under the loan facility up to a maximum of $5.0 million plus enforcement cost. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid principal balance on this loan facility was $18.3 million.

FC Investment has a $15.0 million revolving loan facility with FNBCT. The obligations under this facility are secured by substantially all of the assets of FC Investment and its subsidiaries. FirstCity provides an unlimited guaranty for the repayment of the indebtedness under this revolving loan facility. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid principal balance on this loan facility was $2.0 million. Refer to Note 7 for additional information.

Certain of the Company’s consolidated subsidiaries provide guarantees to various financial institutions related to their financing arrangements with certain Acquisition Partnerships. The underlying financing arrangements of these Acquisitions Partnerships mature at various dates through September 2015, and are secured primarily by certain real estate properties held by the Acquisition Partnerships. At March 31, 2013, the unpaid debt obligations of these Acquisition Partnerships attributed to the underlying guarantees of the Company’s subsidiaries approximated $1.5 million.

Fondo de Inversion Privado NPL Fund One (“PIF1”), an equity-method investment of FirstCity, has a credit facility with Banco Santander Chile, S.A. with an unpaid principal balance of $5.3 million at March 31, 2013. PIF1 uses the credit facility to finance the purchases of loan portfolios. Pursuant to terms of the credit facility, FirstCity was required to provide a stand-by letter of credit from Bank of Scotland that would satisfy the current loan balance upon demand. At March 31, 2013, FirstCity had a letter of credit in the amount of $5.0 million from Bank of Scotland under the terms of FirstCity’s loan facility with Bank of Scotland (see Note 7), with Banco Santander Chile, S.A. as the letter of credit beneficiary. In the event that a demand is made under the $5.0 million letter of credit, FirstCity would be required to reimburse Bank of Scotland by making payment to Bank of Scotland for all amounts disbursed or to be disbursed by Bank of Scotland under the letter of credit.

Environmental Matters

The Company generally retains environmental consultants to conduct or update environmental assessments in connection with the Company’s foreclosed and acquired real estate properties. These environmental assessments have not revealed environmental conditions that the Company believes will have a material adverse effect on its business, assets, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, and the Company is not otherwise aware of environmental conditions with respect to properties that the Company believes would have such a material adverse effect. However, from time to time, environmental conditions at the Company’s properties have required and may in the future require environmental testing and/or regulatory filings, as well as remedial action. Liabilities for future remediation costs are recorded when environmental assessments and/or remedial efforts are probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. Other than for assessments, the timing and magnitude of these accruals generally are based on the completion of investigations or other studies or a commitment to a formal plan of action.

Income Taxes

We are subject to income taxes in both the United States and the non-U.S. jurisdictions in which we operate. Certain of our entities are under examination by the relevant taxing authorities for various tax years. We regularly assess the potential outcome of current and future examinations in each of the taxing jurisdictions when determining the adequacy of the provision for income taxes. We have only recorded financial statement benefits for tax positions which we believe reflect the “more-likely-than-not” criteria incorporated in the FASB’s authoritative guidance on accounting for uncertainty in income taxes, and we have established income tax reserves in accordance with this authoritative guidance where necessary. Once a financial statement benefit for a tax position is recorded or a tax reserve is established, we adjust it only when there is more information available or when an event occurs necessitating a change. While we believe that the amount of the recorded financial statement benefits and tax reserves reflect the more-likely-than-not criteria, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of current or future examinations may result in a reduction to the tax benefits previously recorded on the financial statements or may exceed the current income tax reserves in amounts that could be material.