COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company issues financial instruments with off balance sheet risk in the normal course of the business of meeting the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit. These instruments may involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets.

The Company’s extent of involvement and maximum potential exposure to credit loss under commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument is represented by the contractual amount of these instruments.

The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments and conditional obligations as it does for financial instruments included on its consolidated balance sheets. At March 31, 2013, there were $127,000 of unadvanced commitments on impaired loans. Other liabilities include approximately $20,000 for estimated losses attributable to the unadvanced commitments on impaired loans.

The contractual amounts of off-balance-sheet financial instruments as of March 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, are as follows:



(in thousands)	March 31, 2013		December 31, 2012
Commitments to extend credit	$	741,843	$	722,325
Standby letters of credit	46,062		42,561

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments usually have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses, may have significant usage restrictions, and may require payment of a fee. Of the total commitments to extend credit at March 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, approximately $39.3 million and $50.7 million, respectively, represent fixed rate loan commitments. Since certain of the commitments may expire without being drawn upon or may be revoked, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Company evaluates each customer’s credit worthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary by the Company upon extension of credit, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the borrower. Collateral held varies, but may include accounts receivable, inventory, premises and equipment, and real estate.

Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. These standby letters of credit are issued to support contractual obligations of the Company’s customers. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as the risk involved in extending loans to customers. The approximate remaining term of standby letters of credit range from 6 months to 5 years at March 31, 2013.

Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are, from time to time, parties to various legal proceedings arising out of their businesses. Other than those described below, management believes that there are no such proceedings pending or threatened against the Company or its subsidiaries which, if determined adversely, would have a material adverse effect on the business, consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

Distinctive Notes

The Bank, along with other co-defendants has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits filed by persons alleging to be clients of the Bank’s Trust division who invested in promissory notes (the "Distinctive Notes") issued by Distinctive Properties (UK) Limited (“Distinctive Properties”), a company involved in the purchase and development of real estate in the United Kingdom.

Rosemann, et al. v. Martin Sigillito, et al.

In one of the lawsuits filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the plaintiffs allege that the investments in the Distinctive Notes were part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. Plaintiffs allege to hold such promissory notes in accounts with the Trust division and that, among other things, the Bank was negligent and breached its contracts. Plaintiffs also allege that the Bank violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Plaintiffs, in the aggregate, are seeking damages from defendants, including the Bank, in excess of $44.0 million as well as their costs and attorneys’ fees and trebled damages under RICO.

The case was stayed while criminal proceedings against Sigillito were completed. After a four week trial, Sigillito was found guilty of 20 counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. Following the verdict, the judge lifted the stay and set the case for a four week jury trial starting August 26, 2013. Discovery concluded on April 16, 2013 and dispositive motions were filed. The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss because there are significant legal issues to be determined and depending on the resolution of the legal issue, significant factual issues to be determined and resolved. The Company denies the Plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

BJD, LLC and Barbara Dunning v. Enterprise Bank & Trust, et. al.

The Bank has also been named as a defendant in this case filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, relating to BJD’s investment in the Distinctive Notes. Plaintiffs allege that the Bank, and the other defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were negligent in allowing plaintiffs to invest in the Distinctive Notes because the loan program was allegedly never funded and the assets of the borrower did not exist or were overvalued. Plaintiffs are seeking approximately $800,000 in damages, 9% interest, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Like Rosemann, this case was stayed while the Sigillito criminal case was pending. The court has now granted the Bank's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Arbitration proceedings are not yet underway. The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss because the proceedings are in early stages and there are significant factual issues to be determined and resolved. The Company denies Plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

William Mark Scott v. Enterprise Financial Services Corp, et. al.

On April 10, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri captioned William Mark Scott v. Enterprise Financial Services Corp, Peter F. Benoist, and Frank H. Sanfilippo. The complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's stock between April 20, 2010 and January 25, 2012, inclusive. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants made false and misleading statements and allegedly "failed to disclose that the Company was improperly recording income on loans covered under loss share agreements with the FDIC" and that, as a result, "the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times." The action seeks unspecified damages and costs and expenses. On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on December 11, 2012. A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss is currently set for early May 2013. The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss for the case because the proceeding is in an early stage and there are significant legal and factual issues to be determined and resolved. The Company denies plaintiffs’ allegations and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.