COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2014

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

NOTE 6. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of business, the Bank makes various commitments to extend credit which are not reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

At March 31, 2014 and September 30, 2013, unfunded loan commitments approximated $106.9 million and $102.9 million respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process.  These unfunded loan commitments were principally for variable rate loans.  Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time.  Generally, unused commitments are canceled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract.  At March 31, 2014, the Company had no commitments to purchase securities.  At September 30, 2013, the Company had two commitments to purchase securities held to maturity totaling $0.5 million.

The exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by other parties to financial instruments for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments.  The same credit policies and collateral requirements are used in making commitments and conditional obligations as are used for on-balance-sheet instruments.

Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit and loans in process expire without being used, the amount does not necessarily represent future cash commitments.  In addition, commitments used to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract.

Legal Proceedings

The Bank was served on April 15, 2013, with a lawsuit captioned Inter National Bank v. NetSpend Corporation, MetaBank, BDO USA, LLP d/b/a BDO Seidman, Cause No. C-2084-12-I filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction adds both MetaBank and BDO Seidman to the original causes of action against NetSpend. NetSpend acts as a prepaid card program manager and processor for both INB and MetaBank. According to the Petition, NetSpend has informed Inter National Bank (“INB”) that the depository accounts at INB for the NetSpend program supposedly contained $10.5 million less than they should. INB alleges that NetSpend has breached its fiduciary duty by making affirmative misrepresentations to INB about the safety and stability of the program, and by failing to timely disclose the nature and extent of any alleged shortfall in settlement of funds related to cardholder activity and the nature and extent of NetSpend’s systemic deficiencies in its accounting and settlement processing procedures. To the extent that an accounting reveals that there is an actual shortfall, INB alleges that MetaBank may be liable for portions or all of said sum due to the fact that funds have been transferred from INB to MetaBank, and thus MetaBank would have been unjustly enriched. The Bank intends to vigorously contest this matter.  In January 2014, NetSpend was granted summary judgment in this matter which is under appeal.  Because the theory of liability against both NetSpend and the Bank is the same, the Bank views the NetSpend summary judgment as a positive in support of our position.  An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.

Certain corporate clients of an unrelated company named Springbok Services, Inc. (“Springbok”) requested through counsel a mediation as a means of reaching a settlement in lieu of commencing litigation against MetaBank. The results of that mediation have not led to a settlement. These claimants purchased MetaBank prepaid reward cards from Springbok, prior to Springbok’s bankruptcy. As a result of Springbok’s bankruptcy and cessation of business, some of the rewards cards which had been purchased were never activated or funded. Counsel for these companies have indicated that they are prepared to assert claims totaling approximately $1.5 million against MetaBank based on principal/agency or failure to supervise theories. The Company denies liability with respect to these claims. The Company’s estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss is approximately $0 to $0.3 million.

Other than the matters set forth above, there are no other new material pending legal proceedings or updates to which the Company or its subsidiaries is a party other than ordinary litigation routine to their respective businesses.