The Company has financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk established in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit. These instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk extending beyond amounts recognized in the financial statements.

The Company’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved with extending loans to customers. The Company uses the same credit underwriting policies in making commitments and conditional obligations as for on-balance sheet instruments.

June 30,

2021

December 31,

2020

Commitments to extend credit

936,937

1,012,810

Standby letters of credit

24,526

22,393

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the agreement. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses which may require payment of a fee. Commitments may expire without being drawn upon; therefore, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer’s creditworthiness is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if any, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the borrower. Standby letters of credit are conditional lending commitments issued by the Company to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. These standby letters of credit are primarily issued to support private borrowing arrangements. The credit risk involved in issuing standby letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to customers.

At June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the allowance for credit losses for unfunded commitments totaled $2.1 million and $3.1 million, respectively, and was included in other liabilities on the Company's consolidated statements of financial condition. For the three months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, credit loss (benefit) expense for unfunded commitments was $(764) thousand and $5 thousand, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, credit loss (benefit) expense for unfunded commitments was $(1.0) million and $498 thousand, respectively.

In the ordinary course of business, there are various threatened and pending legal proceedings against the Company. Management believes that the aggregate liability, if any, arising from such litigation, except for the matter described below, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

As previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 as filed with the SEC on March 15, 2021 and as disclosed in Part II, Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we are party to an action filed against us on May 16, 2017 by Matthew L. Chipego, Charlene Mowry, Constance C. Churchill and Joseph W. Ewing in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs seek class certification to represent classes of consumers in New York and Pennsylvania along with statutory damages, interest and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of consumers who are alleged to have obtained direct or indirect financing from us for the purchase of vehicles that we later repossessed. The plaintiffs specifically claim that the notices the Bank sent to defaulting consumers after their vehicles were repossessed did not comply with the relevant portions of the Uniform Commercial Code in New York and Pennsylvania. We dispute and believe we have meritorious defenses against these claims and plan to vigorously defend ourselves.

In February 2020, we agreed to engage in mediation with the plaintiffs and the mediation commenced in May 2021. On October 19, 2020, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing our affirmative defense against one named New York plaintiff that his claim was time-barred under New York law, applying a six-year statute of limitations rather than the three years limitation period we had argued. The plaintiff’s motion for class certification was argued on June 16, 2021 and the motion remains pending.

If we settle these claims or the action is not resolved in our favor, we may suffer reputational damage and incur legal costs, settlements or judgments that exceed the amounts covered by our existing insurance policies. We can provide no assurances that our insurer will insure the legal costs, settlements or judgments we incur in excess of our deductible. If we are unsuccessful in defending ourselves from these claims or if our insurer does not insure us against legal costs we incur in excess of our deductible, the result may materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.