REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	22 – REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Corporation is subject to various regulatory capital requirements imposed by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can result in certain mandatory and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the Corporation’s financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the Corporation must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of the Corporation’s assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. The Corporation’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgment by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. Capital standards established by regulations require the Corporation to maintain minimum amounts and ratios for Leverage (Tier 1 capital to average total assets) and ratios of Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets and Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets as defined in the regulations. The total amount of risk-weighted assets is computed by applying risk-weighting factors to the Corporation’s assets and certain off-balance sheet items, which generally vary from 0% to 100% depending on the nature of the asset. Effective June 2, 2010, FirstBank, by and through its Board of Directors, entered into the FDIC Order with the FDIC and OCIF. This Order provides for various things, including (among other things) the following: (1) having and retaining qualified management; (2) increased participation in the affairs of FirstBank by its board of directors; (3) development and implementation by FirstBank of a capital plan to attain a leverage ratio of at least 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 10% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 12%; (4) adoption and implementation of strategic, liquidity and fund management and profit and budget plans and related projects within certain timetables set forth in the FDIC Order and on an ongoing basis; (5) adoption and implementation of plans for reducing FirstBank’s positions in certain classified assets and delinquent and non-accrual loans within timeframes set forth in the FDIC Order; (6) refraining from lending to delinquent or classified borrowers already obligated to FirstBank on any extensions of credit so long as such credit remains uncollected, except where FirstBank’s failure to extend further credit to a particular borrower would be detrimental to the best interests of FirstBank, and any such additional credit is approved by the FirstBank’s Board of Directors; (7) refraining from accepting, increasing, renewing or rolling over brokered CDs without the prior written approval of the FDIC; (8) establishment of a comprehensive policy and methodology for determining the allowance for loan and lease losses and the review and revision of FirstBank’s loan policies, including the non-accrual policy; and (9) adoption and implementation of adequate and effective programs of independent loan review, appraisal compliance and an effective policy for managing FirstBank’s sensitivity to interest rate risk. The foregoing summary is not complete and is qualified in all respects by reference to the actual language of the FDIC Order. Although all the regulatory capital ratios exceeded the established “well capitalized” levels and the minimum capital ratio requirements of the FDIC Order at September 30, 2012, because of the FDIC Order with the FDIC, FirstBank cannot be treated as a “well capitalized” institution under regulatory guidance. Effective June 3, 2010, First BanCorp entered into the Written Agreement with the FED. The Agreement provides, among other things, that the holding company must serve as a source of strength to FirstBank, and that, except upon consent of the FED, (1) the holding company may not pay dividends to stockholders or receive dividends from FirstBank, (2) the holding company and its nonbank subsidiaries may not make payments on trust preferred securities or subordinated debt, and (3) the holding company cannot incur, increase or guarantee debt or repurchase any capital securities. The Written Agreement also requires that the holding company submit a capital plan which reflects sufficient capital at First BanCorp on a consolidated basis, which must be acceptable to the FED, and follow certain guidelines with respect to the appointment or change in responsibilities of senior officers. The foregoing summary is not complete and is qualified in all respects by reference to the actual language of the Written Agreement. The Corporation submitted its capital plan setting forth how it plans to improve capital positions to comply with the FDIC Order and the Written Agreement over time. In addition to the Capital Plan, the Corporation has submitted to its regulators a liquidity and brokered CD plan, including a contingency funding plan, a non-performing asset reduction plan, a budget and profit plan, a strategic plan and a plan for the reduction of classified and special mention assets. As of September 30, 2012 the Corporation had completed all of the items included in the capital plan and is working on to continue the reduction of non-performing loans. Further, the Corporation has reviewed and enhanced the Corporation’s loan review program, various credit policies, the Corporation’s treasury and investment policy, the Corporation’s asset classification and allowance for loan and lease losses and non-accrual policies, the Corporation’s charge-off policy and the Corporation’s appraisal program. The Agreements also require the submission to the regulators of quarterly progress reports. The FDIC Order imposes no other restrictions on FirstBank’s products or services offered to customers, nor does it or the Written Agreement impose any type of penalties or fines upon FirstBank or the Corporation. Concurrent with the FDIC Order, the FDIC has granted FirstBank temporary waivers to enable it to continue accessing the brokered CD market through December 31, 2012. FirstBank will request approvals for future periods. In June 2012, the U.S. banking regulators jointly published three notices of proposed rulemaking that are essentially intended to implement the Basel III for U.S. banks. Together these notices of proposed rulemaking would, among other things: (i) Implement in the United Stated the Basel III regulatory capital reforms including those that revise the definition of capital, increase minimum capital ratios, and introduce a minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio of 4.5% and a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% (for a total minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio of 7.0%); (ii) Revise “Basel I” rules for calculating risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity; and (iii) Comply with the Dodd-Frank Act provision prohibiting the reliance on external credit ratings. Although uncertainty exists regarding final capital rules, based on our current interpretation of the proposed Basel III capital rules we anticipate to exceed the fully phased-in minimum capital ratios as established in the current proposal. The proposed Basel III capital rules and interpretations used in estimating our Basel III calculations are subject to change depending on final Basel III capital rules. The Corporation enters into financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments may include commitments to extend credit and commitments to sell mortgage loans at fair value. As of September 30, 2012, commitments to extend credit amounted to approximately $1.5 billion, of which $1.0 billion relate to credit card loans. Commercial and Financial standby letters of credit amounted to approximately $83.4 million. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any conditions established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses. For most of the commercial lines of credit, the Corporation has the option to reevaluate the agreement prior to additional disbursements. In the case of credit cards and personal lines of credit, the Corporation can at any time and without cause, cancel the unused credit facility. Generally, the Corporation’s mortgage banking activities do not enter into interest rate lock agreements with prospective borrowers. Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“Lehman”) was the counterparty to the Corporation on certain interest rate swap agreements. During the third quarter of 2008, Lehman failed to pay the scheduled net cash settlement due to the Corporation, which constituted an event of default under those interest rate swap agreements. The Corporation terminated all interest rate swaps with Lehman and replaced them with other counterparties under similar terms and conditions. In connection with the unpaid net cash settlement under the swap agreements, the Corporation has an unsecured counterparty exposure with Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy on October 3, 2008, of approximately $1.4 million. This exposure was reserved in the third quarter of 2008. The Corporation had securities pledged as collateral with a $63.6 million face value to guarantee its performance under the swap agreements in the event payment there under was required. Since the second quarter of 2009, the Corporation has maintained a non-performing asset with a book value of $64.5 million in addition to accrued interest of $2.1 million related to the collateral pledged with Lehman. The Corporation believes that the securities pledged as collateral should not be part of the Lehman bankruptcy estate given the facts that the posted collateral constituted a performance guarantee under the swap agreements and was not part of a financing agreement, and that ownership of the securities was never transferred to Lehman. Upon termination of the interest rate swap agreements, Lehman’s obligation was to return the collateral to the Corporation. During the fourth quarter of 2009, the Corporation discovered that Lehman Brothers, Inc., acting as agent of Lehman, had deposited the securities in a custodial account at JP Morgan Chase, and that, shortly before the filing of the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings, it had provided instructions to have most of the securities transferred to Barclays Capital (“Barclays”) in New York. After Barclays’ refusal to turn over the securities, the Corporation filed a lawsuit against Barclays in federal court in New York demanding the return of the securities in December 2009. During February 2010, Barclays filed a motion with the court requesting that the Corporation’s claim be dismissed on the grounds that the allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to justify the granting of the remedies therein sought. Shortly thereafter, the Corporation filed its opposition motion. A hearing on the motions was held in court on April 28, 2010. The court, on that date, after hearing the arguments by both sides, concluded that the Corporation’s equitable-based causes of action, upon which the return of the investment securities is being demanded, contain allegations that sufficiently plead facts warranting the denial of Barclays’ motion to dismiss the Corporation’s claim. Accordingly, the judge ordered the case to proceed to trial. Subsequent to the court decision, the district court judge transferred the case to the Lehman bankruptcy court for trial. Discovery pursuant to that case management plan has been completed. The parties filed dispositive motions on September 13, 2012. Oppositions to such motions and replies thereto must be filed by October 15, 2012 and November 14, 2012, respectively, but this timing is subject to adjustment. The Corporation may not succeed in its litigation against Barclays to recover all or a substantial portion of the securities. Additionally, the Corporation continues to pursue its claim filed in January 2009 in the proceedings under the Securities Protection Act with regard to Lehman Brothers Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. An estimated loss has not been accrued as the Corporation is unable to determine the timing of the claim resolution or whether it will succeed in recovering all or a substantial portion of the collateral or its equivalent value. Because the Corporation has not had the benefit of the use of the investment securities pledged to Lehman (i.e., ability to sell, pledge or transfer), and because the Corporation has not received principal or interest payments since 2008 (after the collapse of Lehman), the appropriate carrying value of these securities has been under review with our regulators, with recent heightened concern due to the complex and lengthy litigation regarding this matter. If, as a result of these discussions, developments in the litigation, or for other reasons, the Corporation should determine that it is probable that the asset has been impaired and that the Corporation needs to recognize a partial or full loss for the investment securities pledged to Lehman, such an action would adversely affect the Corporation’s results of operations in the period in which such action is taken. The Corporation expects to reassess the recoverability of the asset upon the resolution of the dispositive motions filed with the court, which motions could be resolved in the fourth quarter of 2012. As of September 30, 2012, First BanCorp and its subsidiaries were defendants in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that the final disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial position or results of operations.

22 – REGULATORY MATTERS, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Corporation is subject to various regulatory capital requirements imposed by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can result in certain mandatory and possibly additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the Corporation’s financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the Corporation must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of the Corporation’s assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. The Corporation’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgment by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors.

Capital standards established by regulations require the Corporation to maintain minimum amounts and ratios for Leverage (Tier 1 capital to average total assets) and ratios of Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets and Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets as defined in the regulations. The total amount of risk-weighted assets is computed by applying risk-weighting factors to the Corporation’s assets and certain off-balance sheet items, which generally vary from 0% to 100% depending on the nature of the asset.

Effective June 2, 2010, FirstBank, by and through its Board of Directors, entered into the FDIC Order with the FDIC and OCIF. This Order provides for various things, including (among other things) the following: (1) having and retaining qualified management; (2) increased participation in the affairs of FirstBank by its board of directors; (3) development and implementation by FirstBank of a capital plan to attain a leverage ratio of at least 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 10% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 12%; (4) adoption and implementation of strategic, liquidity and fund management and profit and budget plans and related projects within certain timetables set forth in the FDIC Order and on an ongoing basis; (5) adoption and implementation of plans for reducing FirstBank’s positions in certain classified assets and delinquent and non-accrual loans within timeframes set forth in the FDIC Order; (6) refraining from lending to delinquent or classified borrowers already obligated to FirstBank on any extensions of credit so long as such credit remains uncollected, except where FirstBank’s failure to extend further credit to a particular borrower would be detrimental to the best interests of FirstBank, and any such additional credit is approved by the FirstBank’s Board of Directors; (7) refraining from accepting, increasing, renewing or rolling over brokered CDs without the prior written approval of the FDIC; (8) establishment of a comprehensive policy and methodology for determining the allowance for loan and lease losses and the review and revision of FirstBank’s loan policies, including the non-accrual policy; and (9) adoption and implementation of adequate and effective programs of independent loan review, appraisal compliance and an effective policy for managing FirstBank’s sensitivity to interest rate risk. The foregoing summary is not complete and is qualified in all respects by reference to the actual language of the FDIC Order. Although all the regulatory capital ratios exceeded the established “well capitalized” levels and the minimum capital ratio requirements of the FDIC Order at September 30, 2012, because of the FDIC Order with the FDIC, FirstBank cannot be treated as a “well capitalized” institution under regulatory guidance.

Effective June 3, 2010, First BanCorp entered into the Written Agreement with the FED. The Agreement provides, among other things, that the holding company must serve as a source of strength to FirstBank, and that, except upon consent of the FED, (1) the holding company may not pay dividends to stockholders or receive dividends from FirstBank, (2) the holding company and its nonbank subsidiaries may not make payments on trust preferred securities or subordinated debt, and (3) the holding company cannot incur, increase or guarantee debt or repurchase any capital securities. The Written Agreement also requires that the holding company submit a capital plan which reflects sufficient capital at First BanCorp on a consolidated basis, which must be acceptable to the FED, and follow certain guidelines with respect to the appointment or change in responsibilities of senior officers. The foregoing summary is not complete and is qualified in all respects by reference to the actual language of the Written Agreement.

The Corporation submitted its capital plan setting forth how it plans to improve capital positions to comply with the FDIC Order and the Written Agreement over time. In addition to the Capital Plan, the Corporation has submitted to its regulators a liquidity and brokered CD plan, including a contingency funding plan, a non-performing asset reduction plan, a budget and profit plan, a strategic plan and a plan for the reduction of classified and special mention assets. As of September 30, 2012 the Corporation had completed all of the items included in the capital plan and is working on to continue the reduction of non-performing loans. Further, the Corporation has reviewed and enhanced the Corporation’s loan review program, various credit policies, the Corporation’s treasury and investment policy, the Corporation’s asset classification and allowance for loan and lease losses and non-accrual policies, the Corporation’s charge-off policy and the Corporation’s appraisal program. The Agreements also require the submission to the regulators of quarterly progress reports.

The FDIC Order imposes no other restrictions on FirstBank’s products or services offered to customers, nor does it or the Written Agreement impose any type of penalties or fines upon FirstBank or the Corporation. Concurrent with the FDIC Order, the FDIC has granted FirstBank temporary waivers to enable it to continue accessing the brokered CD market through December 31, 2012. FirstBank will request approvals for future periods.

In June 2012, the U.S. banking regulators jointly published three notices of proposed rulemaking that are essentially intended to implement the Basel III for U.S. banks. Together these notices of proposed rulemaking would, among other things: (i) Implement in the United Stated the Basel III regulatory capital reforms including those that revise the definition of capital, increase minimum capital ratios, and introduce a minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio of 4.5% and a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% (for a total minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio of 7.0%); (ii) Revise “Basel I” rules for calculating risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity; and (iii) Comply with the Dodd-Frank Act provision prohibiting the reliance on external credit ratings.

Although uncertainty exists regarding final capital rules, based on our current interpretation of the proposed Basel III capital rules we anticipate to exceed the fully phased-in minimum capital ratios as established in the current proposal. The proposed Basel III capital rules and interpretations used in estimating our Basel III calculations are subject to change depending on final Basel III capital rules.

The Corporation enters into financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments may include commitments to extend credit and commitments to sell mortgage loans at fair value. As of September 30, 2012, commitments to extend credit amounted to approximately $1.5 billion, of which $1.0 billion relate to credit card loans. Commercial and Financial standby letters of credit amounted to approximately $83.4 million. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any conditions established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses. For most of the commercial lines of credit, the Corporation has the option to reevaluate the agreement prior to additional disbursements. In the case of credit cards and personal lines of credit, the Corporation can at any time and without cause, cancel the unused credit facility. Generally, the Corporation’s mortgage banking activities do not enter into interest rate lock agreements with prospective borrowers.

Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“Lehman”) was the counterparty to the Corporation on certain interest rate swap agreements. During the third quarter of 2008, Lehman failed to pay the scheduled net cash settlement due to the Corporation, which constituted an event of default under those interest rate swap agreements. The Corporation terminated all interest rate swaps with Lehman and replaced them with other counterparties under similar terms and conditions. In connection with the unpaid net cash settlement under the swap agreements, the Corporation has an unsecured counterparty exposure with Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy on October 3, 2008, of approximately $1.4 million. This exposure was reserved in the third quarter of 2008. The Corporation had securities pledged as collateral with a $63.6 million face value to guarantee its performance under the swap agreements in the event payment there under was required.

Since the second quarter of 2009, the Corporation has maintained a non-performing asset with a book value of $64.5 million in addition to accrued interest of $2.1 million related to the collateral pledged with Lehman. The Corporation believes that the securities pledged as collateral should not be part of the Lehman bankruptcy estate given the facts that the posted collateral constituted a performance guarantee under the swap agreements and was not part of a financing agreement, and that ownership of the securities was never transferred to Lehman. Upon termination of the interest rate swap agreements, Lehman’s obligation was to return the collateral to the Corporation. During the fourth quarter of 2009, the Corporation discovered that Lehman Brothers, Inc., acting as agent of Lehman, had deposited the securities in a custodial account at JP Morgan Chase, and that, shortly before the filing of the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings, it had provided instructions to have most of the securities transferred to Barclays Capital (“Barclays”) in New York. After Barclays’ refusal to turn over the securities, the Corporation filed a lawsuit against Barclays in federal court in New York demanding the return of the securities in December 2009. During February 2010, Barclays filed a motion with the court requesting that the Corporation’s claim be dismissed on the grounds that the allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to justify the granting of the remedies therein sought. Shortly thereafter, the Corporation filed its opposition motion. A hearing on the motions was held in court on April 28, 2010. The court, on that date, after hearing the arguments by both sides, concluded that the Corporation’s equitable-based causes of action, upon which the return of the investment securities is being demanded, contain allegations that sufficiently plead facts warranting the denial of Barclays’ motion to dismiss the Corporation’s claim. Accordingly, the judge ordered the case to proceed to trial.

Subsequent to the court decision, the district court judge transferred the case to the Lehman bankruptcy court for trial. Discovery pursuant to that case management plan has been completed. The parties filed dispositive motions on September 13, 2012. Oppositions to such motions and replies thereto must be filed by October 15, 2012 and November 14, 2012, respectively, but this timing is subject to adjustment. The Corporation may not succeed in its litigation against Barclays to recover all or a substantial portion of the securities.

Additionally, the Corporation continues to pursue its claim filed in January 2009 in the proceedings under the Securities Protection Act with regard to Lehman Brothers Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

An estimated loss has not been accrued as the Corporation is unable to determine the timing of the claim resolution or whether it will succeed in recovering all or a substantial portion of the collateral or its equivalent value.

Because the Corporation has not had the benefit of the use of the investment securities pledged to Lehman (i.e., ability to sell, pledge or transfer), and because the Corporation has not received principal or interest payments since 2008 (after the collapse of Lehman), the appropriate carrying value of these securities has been under review with our regulators, with recent heightened concern due to the complex and lengthy litigation regarding this matter. If, as a result of these discussions, developments in the litigation, or for other reasons, the Corporation should determine that it is probable that the asset has been impaired and that the Corporation needs to recognize a partial or full loss for the investment securities pledged to Lehman, such an action would adversely affect the Corporation’s results of operations in the period in which such action is taken. The Corporation expects to reassess the recoverability of the asset upon the resolution of the dispositive motions filed with the court, which motions could be resolved in the fourth quarter of 2012.

As of September 30, 2012, First BanCorp and its subsidiaries were defendants in various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that the final disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s financial position or results of operations.