COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 16. 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 September 30, 2015 and 2014, unfunded loan commitments approximated $158.3 million and $96.0 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Unfunded loan commitments at September 30, 2015 and 2014 were principally for variable rate loans. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are cancelled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract. At September 30, 2015, the Company had two commitments to purchase securities available for sale totaling $7.9 million and three commitments to purchase securities held to maturity totaling $3.0 million. The Company had no commitments to purchase securities at September 30, 2014. The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance 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 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. Securities with fair values of approximately $5.8 million at September 30, 2015 and 2014 were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $0 and $7.4 million at September 30, 2015, and 2014, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits. Legal Proceedings The Bank has been named as a defendant, along with other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The complaints in each of these actions seek monetary damages for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or trade/business practices. Due to the recent filing of the complaints, the Company is evaluating the cases and has not yet filed an answer. In addition, the OCC and the CFPB are examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such action is warranted. Because these cases were recently filed and are in their early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions. 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 is vigorously contesting 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 that 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. The Bank commenced action against C&B Farms, LLC, Dakota River Farms, LLC, Dakota Grain Farms, LLC, Heather Swenson and Tracy Clement in early July, 2015, in the Third Judicial Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota, seeking to collect upon certain delinquent loans made in connection with the 2014 farming operations of the three identified limited liability companies and the personal guaranties of Swenson and Clement. The three companies and Clement have answered the Complaint and asserted a counterclaim against the Bank and a third-party claim against the Bank’s loan officer. The counterclaim and third-party claim allege that the Bank and its loan officer made certain statements to Clement in early 2015 indicating that the Bank would renew the operating lines and provide financing to the entities for the 2015 growing season. The claimants assert that the Bank abruptly changed course in March, 2015, and ultimately declined to extend new operating lines to the defendants for the 2015 season. The claimants assert that the Bank’s conduct amounted to a fraud and misrepresentation. Additionally, they assert promissory estoppel based on their reliance upon the Bank’s earlier assurances of additional credit from the Bank to their detriment. They assert unspecified damages based on the Bank’s alleged actions, including higher costs of financing from a new lender and, additionally, that they were unable to take advantage of other discount and sale opportunities to their detriment. The Bank intends to vigorously defend the claims. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted. 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.

NOTE 16. 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 September 30, 2015 and 2014, unfunded loan commitments approximated $158.3 million and $96.0 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Unfunded loan commitments at September 30, 2015 and 2014 were principally for variable rate loans. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are cancelled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract.

At September 30, 2015, the Company had two commitments to purchase securities available for sale totaling $7.9 million and three commitments to purchase securities held to maturity totaling $3.0 million. The Company had no commitments to purchase securities at September 30, 2014.

The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance 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 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.

Securities with fair values of approximately $5.8 million at September 30, 2015 and 2014 were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $0 and $7.4 million at September 30, 2015, and 2014, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits.

Legal Proceedings

The Bank has been named as a defendant, along with other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The complaints in each of these actions seek monetary damages for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or about October 12, 2015. The plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or trade/business practices. Due to the recent filing of the complaints, the Company is evaluating the cases and has not yet filed an answer. In addition, the OCC and the CFPB are examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such action is warranted. Because these cases were recently filed and are in their early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions.

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 is vigorously contesting 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 that 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.

The Bank commenced action against C&B Farms, LLC, Dakota River Farms, LLC, Dakota Grain Farms, LLC, Heather Swenson and Tracy Clement in early July, 2015, in the Third Judicial Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota, seeking to collect upon certain delinquent loans made in connection with the 2014 farming operations of the three identified limited liability companies and the personal guaranties of Swenson and Clement. The three companies and Clement have answered the Complaint and asserted a counterclaim against the Bank and a third-party claim against the Bank’s loan officer. The counterclaim and third-party claim allege that the Bank and its loan officer made certain statements to Clement in early 2015 indicating that the Bank would renew the operating lines and provide financing to the entities for the 2015 growing season. The claimants assert that the Bank abruptly changed course in March, 2015, and ultimately declined to extend new operating lines to the defendants for the 2015 season. The claimants assert that the Bank’s conduct amounted to a fraud and misrepresentation. Additionally, they assert promissory estoppel based on their reliance upon the Bank’s earlier assurances of additional credit from the Bank to their detriment. They assert unspecified damages based on the Bank’s alleged actions, including higher costs of financing from a new lender and, additionally, that they were unable to take advantage of other discount and sale opportunities to their detriment. The Bank intends to vigorously defend the claims. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.

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.