COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Operating Leases. The Company leases office space under operating lease agreements scheduled to expire at various dates. The following table represents maturities of lease liabilities as of September 30, 2022 in the corresponding fiscal years:


(Dollars in thousands)
Remainder of fiscal year 2023	$	8,151
2024	10,976
2025	11,143
2026	10,811
2027	10,870
Thereafter	29,177
Total lease payments	81,128
Less: amount representing interest	(8,074)
Total Lease Liability	$	73,054

Credit-Related Financial Instruments. The Company is a party to credit-related financial instruments with off-balance-sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments are commitments to extend credit. Such commitments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amount recognized in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.

The Company’s exposure to credit loss is represented by the contractual amount of these commitments. The Company follows the same credit policies in making commitments as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments.

At September 30, 2022, the Company had commitments to originate $192.1 million in fixed rate loans and $3,181.9 million in variable rate loans, totaling an aggregate principal balance of $3,374.0 million. At September 30, 2022, the Company’s fixed rate commitments to originate had a weighted-average rate of 6.70%. At September 30, 2022, the Company also had commitments to sell $12.6 million in fixed rate loans and no variable rate loans, totaling an aggregate principal balance of $12.6 million.

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer so 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. The commitments for equity lines of credit may expire without being drawn upon. Therefore, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The amount of collateral obtained, if it is deemed necessary by the Company, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the customer.

In the normal course of business, Axos Clearing’s customer activities involve the execution, settlement, and financing of various customer securities transactions. These activities may expose Axos Clearing to off-balance-sheet risk in the event the customer or other broker is unable to fulfill its contracted obligations and Axos Clearing has to purchase or sell the financial

instrument underlying the contract at a loss. Axos Clearing’s clearing agreements with broker-dealers for which it provides clearing services requires them to indemnify Axos Clearing if customers fail to satisfy their contractual obligation.

Litigation. On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit, Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Golden Case”). On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit, Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Hazan Case”). On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the “HMEPS Class Action”), and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 (the “Employment Matter”) and that as a result the Company’s statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading. On April 13, 2022, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was submitted to the District Court for approval on April 15, 2022. On June 8, 2022, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing with respect to final approval of the settlement for October 7, 2022. On October 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of such settlement. The settlement was reached because the parties were able to negotiate terms within available insurance coverage and without attribution of wrongdoing to Axos, its management or its directors.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Mandalevy Case”). The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case (the “Mandalevy Complaint”) alleges a class period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class Action. On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and the Court took the matter under advisement. On November 3, 2020, the Court issued a ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court’s Order dismissing the Class Action Second Amended Complaint. The defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc on November 17, 2020, which petition was denied on December 16, 2020. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the remanded complaint on February 19, 2021. On January 31, 2022, a Stipulation of Settlement was submitted to the District Court for approval. On May 17, 2022, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing with respect to final approval for September 23, 2022. On September 26, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting final approval of such settlement. The settlement was reached because the parties were able to negotiate terms within available insurance coverage and without attribution of wrongdoing to Axos, its management or its directors.

In addition to the First Class Action and the Mandalevy Case, two separate shareholder derivative actions were filed in December, 2015, purportedly on behalf of the Company. The first derivative action, Calcaterra v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on December 3, 2015. The second derivative action, Dow v. Micheletti, et al, was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court on December 16, 2015. A third derivative action, DeYoung v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 22, 2016, a fourth derivative action, Yong v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on January 29, 2016, a fifth derivative action, Laborers Pension Trust Fund of Northern Nevada v. Allrich et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on February 2, 2016, and a sixth derivative action, Garner v. Garrabrants, et al, was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court on August 10, 2017. Each of these six derivative actions names the Company as a nominal defendant, and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. Each complaint sets forth allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment against the defendant officers and directors. The plaintiffs in these derivative actions seek damages in unspecified amounts on the Company’s behalf from the officer and director defendants, certain corporate governance actions, and an award of their costs and attorney’s fees.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California ordered the six above-referenced derivative actions pending before it to be consolidated and appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action. On June 7, 2018, the Court entered an order granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, but giving the plaintiffs limited leave to amend by June 28, 2018. The plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, and instead plaintiffs filed on June 28, 2018 a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the securities class action and Employment Matter. On August 10, 2018, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. On September 11, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On October 16, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 16, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss

the second amended complaint. The Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on May 23, 2019. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening brief and the Company filed its answering brief. Oral argument was held September 2, 2020. On February 25, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum decision affirming the dismissal of the Calcaterra derivative action. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order denying a stay of the action and remanded to the district court to reconsider whether it should grant the plaintiff leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit issued its mandate to the district court on April 9, 2021, and the plaintiff has opted for a stay on remand rather than amending the complaint. The two derivative actions pending before the San Diego County Superior Court have been consolidated and have been stayed by agreement of the parties.

The Company and the other named defendants dispute, and intend to vigorously defend against, the allegations raised in the consolidated action and the state court derivative actions. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of each legal action, particularly since claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, it is not possible to reasonably predict or estimate the eventual loss or range of loss, if any, related to each legal action, unless otherwise disclosed above.

On October 26, 2022, a jury verdict was reached in the case of MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Axos Bank, et al, resulting in an award to Union Bank. The Company continues to believe that the evidence supports the defendants’ understanding of the facts and that meritorious defenses exist to substantially all claims made by Union Bank. In addition, the Company believes that there exists substantial grounds for post-verdict relief and appeal. The Company recorded a $16 million accrued expense in accounts payable and other liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets and in general and administrative expense on the condensed consolidated statements of income as of and for the three months ended September 30, 2022, respectively.