XML 49 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.4

Contingent Liabilities | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingent Liabilities | CONTINGENT LIABILITIES In the ordinary course of its operations, the Company and its subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of the Company’s business, including proceedings based on breach of contract claims, lender liability claims, and other ordinary-course claims, some of which seek substantial relief or damages. On May 22, 2019, Danny Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort filed a putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The operative complaint alleges that Simmons Bank improperly charges overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw customers’ accounts by utilizing the checking account’s “available balance” to assess overdraft fees instead of the “ledger balance.” Plaintiffs’ claims include breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and they seek to represent a proposed class of all Simmons Bank checking account customers who were assessed an overdraft fee on a transaction that purportedly did not overdraw the account. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems proper for themselves and the putative class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations but entered into a settlement agreement and release with the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the proposed class to resolve this matter, which settlement received the court’s final approval in November 2022. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. On January 14, 2020, Susanne Pace filed a putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri against Landmark Bank, formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Landrum Company, to which Simmons Bank is a successor by merger in connection with the Company’s acquisition of The Landrum Company, which closed in October 2019. The complaint alleges that Landmark Bank improperly charged overdraft fees where a transaction was initially authorized on sufficient funds but later settled negative due to intervening transactions. The complaint asserts a claim for breach of contract, which incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all Landmark Bank checking account customers from Missouri who were allegedly charged overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw their checking account. Plaintiff seeks unspecified actual, statutory, and punitive damages as well as costs, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for herself and the putative class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations but entered into a settlement agreement and release with the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the proposed class to resolve this matter, which settlement received the court’s final approval in January 2023. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. On May 13, 2021, Susanne Pace filed a second putative class action complaint in the circuit court of Boone County, Missouri against Landmark Bank, to which Simmons Bank is a successor by merger, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division. The complaint alleged that Landmark Bank improperly charged multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees when a merchant or other originator resubmits a rejected payment request. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all Landmark Bank checking account customers who were charged multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment requests. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages, costs, attorney’s fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for herself and the purported class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations, and on January 11, 2022, the Court granted Simmons Bank’s motion to compel arbitration. The matter was resolved in September 2022 and did not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. On June 29, 2020, Shunda Wilkins, Diann Graham, and David Watson filed a putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The complaint alleges that Simmons Bank improperly charges multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees when a merchant resubmits a rejected payment request. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all Simmons Bank checking account customers who were charged multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment requests. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for themselves and the purported class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. On February 9, 2023, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, granted Simmons Bank’s motion for summary judgment in part, and granted Simmons Bank’s motion to exclude testimony of plaintiffs’ expert. The lawsuit remains pending. We establish reserves for legal proceedings when potential losses become probable and can be reasonably estimated. While the ultimate resolution (including amounts thereof) of any legal proceedings, including the Wilkins matter described above, cannot be determined at this time, based on information presently available and after consultation with legal counsel, management believes that the ultimate outcome in such proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. It is possible, however, that future developments could result in an unfavorable outcome for or resolution of any of these proceedings, which may be material to the Company’s results of operations for a given fiscal period.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration