14.	GUARANTEES, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Bank’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party for commitments to make loans and standby letters of credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The Bank uses the same credit policies in making these commitments as it does for on-balance sheet instruments. For interest rate swap transactions and commitments to purchase or sell securities for forward delivery, the contract or notional amounts do not represent exposure to credit loss. The Bank controls the credit risk of these derivative instruments through credit approvals, limits and monitoring procedures. Certain derivative contracts have credit risk for the carrying value plus the amount to replace such contracts in the event of counterparty default. All of the Bank’s financial instruments are held for risk management and not for trading purposes. During the quarters ended September 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, there were no credit losses associated with derivative contracts.

In the normal course of business, there are outstanding commitments and contingent liabilities, such as commitments to extend credit, letters of credit and others, that are not included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The financial instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of amounts recognized in the financial statements. A summary of these commitments and contingent liabilities is presented below:

	September 30, 2015		December 31, 2014
	(Dollars in Thousands)
Standby letters of credit	$	683	$	833
Commitments to extend credit	$	39,703	$	31,644

Standby letters of credit are contingent commitments issued by the Bank generally to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. The Bank has recourse against the customer for any amount that it is required to pay to a third party under a standby letter of credit. Revenues are recognized over the lives of the standby letters of credit. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the potential amount of future payments that the Bank could be required to make under its standby letters of credit, which represent the Bank’s total credit risk in this category, is included in the table above.

A commitment to extend credit is an agreement to lend to a customer as 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. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Bank evaluates each customer’s creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary by the Bank upon the extension of credit, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the counterparty. Collateral held varies but may include accounts receivable, inventory, property, plant and equipment and income-producing commercial properties.

Commitments to purchase securities for delayed delivery require the Bank to purchase a specified security at a specified price for delivery on a specified date. Similarly, commitments to sell securities for delayed delivery require the Bank to sell a specified security at a specified price for delivery on a specified date. Market risk arises from potential movements in security values and interest rates between the commitment and delivery dates. As of September 30, 2015, the Bank had $3.5 million in outstanding commitments to purchase securities for delayed delivery and no outstanding commitments to sell securities for delayed delivery. As of December 31, 2014, there were no outstanding commitments to purchase securities for delayed delivery and no outstanding commitments to sell securities for delayed delivery.

Litigation

On December 2, 2013, Wayne Allen Russell filed a lawsuit against the Bank in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, alleging that the Bank wrongfully foreclosed on a parcel of property owned by Russell that was subject to a mortgage in favor of the Bank. Mr. Russell alleges that the loan secured by the mortgage had been satisfied in full from the proceeds of a prior foreclosure of additional properties subject to the same mortgage. Mr. Russell seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The Bank denies Mr. Russell’s allegations and is vigorously defending the lawsuit. At this time, discovery is ongoing, and the Company is unable to assess the likelihood of a resolution or the possibility of an unfavorable outcome in this matter.

The Company is also party to other litigation, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all such litigation. In the opinion of the Company, based on review and consultation with legal counsel, the outcome of such other litigation should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements or results of operations.