13. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

The Company is subject to loss contingencies related to litigation, claims, investigations and legal and administrative cases and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company evaluates these contingencies based on information currently available, including advice of counsel. The Company establishes accruals for those matters when a loss contingency is considered probable and the related amount is reasonably estimable. Any accruals are periodically reviewed and may be adjusted as circumstances change. A portion of the Company’s exposure with respect to loss contingencies may be offset by applicable insurance coverage. In determining the amounts of any accruals or estimates of possible loss contingencies, the Company does not take into account the availability of insurance coverage, other than that provided by reinsurers in the insurance segment. When it is practicable, the Company estimates loss contingencies for possible litigation and claims, whether or not there is accrued probable loss. When the Company is able to estimate such probably losses, and when it estimates that it is reasonably possible it could incur losses in excess of amounts accrued, the Company is required to make a disclosure of the aggregate estimation. As available information changes, however, the matters for which the Company is able to estimate, as well as the estimate themselves, will be adjusted accordingly.

Assessments of litigation and claims exposures are difficult due to many factors that involve inherent unpredictability. Those factors include the following: the varying stages of the proceedings, particularly in the early stages; unspecified, unsupported, or uncertain damages; damages other than compensatory, such as punitive damages; a matter presenting meaningful legal uncertainties, including novel issues of law; multiple defendants and jurisdictions; whether discovery has begun or is complete; whether meaningful settlement discussions have commenced; and whether the claim involves a class action and if so, how the class is defined. As a result of some of these factors, the Company may be unable to estimate reasonably possible losses with respect to some or all of the pending and threatened litigation and claims asserted against the Company.

Following completion of Hilltop’s acquisition of SWS, several purported holders of shares of SWS common stock (the “Petitioners”) filed petitions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”) seeking appraisal for their shares pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. These petitions were consolidated as In re SWS Group, Inc., C.A. No. 10554-VCG. On May 30, 2017, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion in the matter. The Court found the “fair value” of the shares of SWS common stock as of the date of the transaction was $6.38 per share. Accordingly, Hilltop paid cash of $6.38 per share, plus statutory interest from the effective date of the merger until the date of payment, to the Petitioners and the other stockholders of SWS who properly demanded appraisal rights under Delaware law, collectively representing 7,438,453 shares. Each outstanding share of SWS common stock, other than shares held by Hilltop, in treasury by SWS or by stockholders who properly demanded appraisal rights under Delaware law, was converted into the right to receive 0.2496 shares of Hilltop common stock and $1.94 in cash, the aggregate value of which was $6.92 per share of SWS common stock as of the effective date of the merger. The resolution of this matter resulted in 1,856,638 shares of HTH common stock, which had been held in escrow during the pendency of the proceeding, being returned to the Company’s pool of authorized but unissued shares of common stock and a pre-tax net increase to other noninterest income of $11.6 million during the second quarter of 2017. This change in common stock is reflected in repurchases of common stock within the consolidated statements of stockholders’ equity. Certain Petitioners filed an appeal to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion. On February 23, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower Court.

The Company is involved in information-gathering requests and investigations (both formal and informal), as well as reviews, examinations and proceedings (collectively, “Inquiries”) by various governmental regulatory agencies, law enforcement authorities and self-regulatory bodies regarding certain of its businesses, business practices and policies, as well as the conduct of persons with whom it does business. Additional Inquiries will arise from time to time. In connection with those Inquiries, the Company receives document requests, subpoenas and other requests for information. The Inquiries, including the Inquiry described below, could develop into administrative, civil or criminal proceedings or enforcement actions that could result in consequences that have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a whole. Such consequences could include adverse judgments, findings, settlements, penalties, fines, orders, injunctions, restitution, or alterations in the Company’s business practices, and could result in additional expenses and collateral costs, including reputational damage.

As a part of an industry-wide Inquiry, PrimeLending received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) regarding mortgage-related practices, including those relating to origination practices for loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (the “FHA”). On August 20, 2014, PrimeLending received a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ related to this Inquiry. According to the Civil Investigative Demand, the DOJ is conducting an investigation to determine whether PrimeLending has violated the False Claims Act in connection with originating and underwriting single-family residential mortgage loans insured by the FHA. In order to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of protracted ligation, on October 23, 2018, PrimeLending entered into a Settlement Agreement and an Indemnification Agreement with the DOJ and HUD, respectively. In these agreements, PrimeLending did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing, and the DOJ and HUD did not make any concessions with respect to their alleged claims. These agreements provide for payments to each of the DOJ and HUD of $6.75 million. In exchange for these payments, each of the DOJ and HUD released any civil claims it may have related to certain loans originated by PrimeLending. As of September 30, 2018, the amount was included in the Company's recorded indemnification reserve liability. Accordingly, the Company’s operating results or financial condition will not be materially impacted in future periods.

While the final outcome of litigation and claims exposures or of any Inquiries is inherently unpredictable, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of pending and threatened litigation and Inquiries will not, except related to specific matters disclosed above, have a material effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a whole. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is reasonably possible that an adverse outcome in any matter, including the matters discussed above, could be material to the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period of occurrence.

Indemnification Liability Reserve

The mortgage origination segment may be responsible to agencies, investors, or other parties for errors or omissions relating to its representations and warranties that each loan sold meets certain requirements, including representations as to underwriting standards and the validity of certain borrower representations in connection with the loan. If determined to be at fault, the mortgage origination segment either repurchases the affected loan from or indemnifies the claimant against loss. The mortgage origination segment has established an indemnification liability reserve for such probable losses.

Generally, the mortgage origination segment first becomes aware that an agency, investor, or other party believes a loss has been incurred on a sold loan when it receives a written request from the claimant to repurchase the loan or reimburse the claimant’s losses. Upon completing its review of the claimant’s request, the mortgage origination segment establishes a specific claims reserve for the loan if it concludes its obligation to the claimant is both probable and reasonably estimable.

An additional reserve has been established for probable agency, investor or other party losses that may have been incurred, but not yet reported to the mortgage origination segment based upon a reasonable estimate of such losses. Factors considered in the calculation of this reserve include, but are not limited to, the total volume of loans sold exclusive of specific claimant requests, actual claim settlements and the severity of estimated losses resulting from future claims, and the mortgage origination segment’s history of successfully curing defects identified in claim requests. While the mortgage origination segment’s sales contracts typically include borrower early payment default repurchase provisions, these provisions have not been a primary driver of claims to date, and therefore, are not a primary factor considered in the calculation of this reserve.

At September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the mortgage origination segment’s indemnification liability reserve totaled $24.2 million and $23.5 million, respectively. The provision for indemnification losses was $0.9 million and $2.5 million during the three months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and $2.6 million and $4.5 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

The following tables provide for a rollforward of claims activity for loans put-back to the mortgage origination segment based upon an alleged breach of a representation or warranty with respect to a loan sold and related indemnification liability reserve activity (in thousands).


	Representation and Warranty Specific Claims
	Activity - Origination Loan Balance
	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2018		2017		2018		2017
Balance, beginning of period	$	30,545	$	32,554	$	33,702	$	40,669
Claims made		5,477		10,618		17,827		27,647
Claims resolved with no payment		(578)		(10,991)		(12,331)		(29,079)
Repurchases		(3,513)		(1,326)		(6,847)		(3,014)
Indemnification payments		—		—		(420)		(5,368)
Balance, end of period	$	31,931	$	30,855	$	31,931	$	30,855

	Indemnification Liability Reserve Activity
	Three Months Ended September 30,				Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2018		2017		2018		2017
Balance, beginning of period	$	23,910	$	22,367	$	23,472	$	18,239
Additions for new sales		857		2,488		2,599		4,480
Repurchases		(228)		(158)		(474)		(283)
Early payment defaults		(72)		(41)		(259)		(170)
Indemnification payments		(4)		—		(124)		(713)
Change in reserves for loans sold in prior years		(292)		—		(1,043)		3,103
Balance, end of period	$	24,171	$	24,656	$	24,171	$	24,656

	September 30,		December 31,
	2018		2017
Reserve for Indemnification Liability (1):
Specific claims	$	14,375	$	646
Incurred but not reported claims		9,796		22,826
Total	$	24,171	$	23,472

(1)

As a result of the DOJ and HUD agreements discussed above, at September 30, 2018, the Reserve for Indemnification Liability reflects $13.5 million of specific claims that were included in incurred but not reported claims in prior periods.

Although management considers the total indemnification liability reserve to be appropriate, there may be changes in the reserve over time to address incurred losses due to unanticipated adverse changes in the economy and historical loss patterns, discrete events adversely affecting specific borrowers or industries, and/or actions taken by institutions or investors. The impact of such matters is considered in the reserving process when probable and estimable.

Hilltop Plaza Investment

On July 31, 2018, HTH Diamond Hillcrest Land LLC (“Hillcrest Land LLC”) purchased approximately 1.7 acres of land in the City of University Park, Texas for $38.5 million. Hillcrest Land LLC is owned equally between Hilltop Investments I, LLC, a wholly owned entity of Hilltop, and Diamond Ground, LLC, an affiliate of Gerald J. Ford, the current Chairman of the Board of Hilltop. Each of Hilltop Investments I, LLC and Diamond Ground, LLC contributed $19.3 million to Hillcrest Land LLC to complete the purchase. As the voting rights of Hillcrest Land LLC are shared equally between the Company and Diamond Ground, LLC, there is no primary beneficiary, and Diamond Ground, LLC’s interest in Hillcrest Land LLC has been reflected as a noncontrolling interest in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Therefore, the Company has consolidated Hillcrest Land LLC under the VIE model according to the “most-closely associated” test. The purchased land is included within premises and equipment, net in the consolidated balance sheets. Any income (loss) associated with Hillcrest Land LLC is included within other noninterest income in the consolidated statements of operations.

Gerald J. Ford beneficially owned 16.4% of Hilltop common stock as of September 30, 2018 and is the father of Jeremy Ford, a director and the President and Co-Principal Executive Officer of Hilltop, and the father-in-law of Corey Prestidge, the Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Hilltop. Trusts for which Jeremy Ford and the wife of Corey Prestidge are a beneficiary own 10.2% and 10.1%, respectively, of Diamond Ground, LLC.

In connection with the purchase of the land, Hillcrest Land LLC entered into a 99-year ground lease of the land with three tenants-in-common: SPC Park Plaza Partners LLC (“Park Plaza LLC”), an unaffiliated entity which received an undivided 50% leasehold interest; HTH Hillcrest Project LLC (“HTH Project LLC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop, which received an undivided 25% leasehold interest; and Diamond Hillcrest, LLC (“Diamond Hillcrest”), an entity owned by Mr. Gerald J. Ford, which received an undivided 25% leasehold interest (collectively, the “Co-Owners”). The ground lease is triple net. The base rent from the Co-Owners under the ground lease commences 18 months after the ground lease was signed at $1.8 million per year and increases 1.0% per year each January 1 thereafter. The ground lease was classified as an operating lease under ASC 840, and the accounting commencement date was determined to be July 31, 2018, the date the land was available to the Co-Owners.

Concurrent with the ground lease, the Co-Owners entered into an agreement to purchase the improvements currently being constructed on the land, which is a mixed-use project containing a six-story building (“Hilltop Plaza”). HTH Project LLC and Diamond Hillcrest each own an undivided 25% interest in Hilltop Plaza. Park Plaza LLC owns the remaining undivided 50% interest in Hilltop Plaza. Park Plaza LLC has agreed to serve as the Co-Owner property manager under the Co-Owners Agreement; however, certain actions require unanimous approval of all Co-Owners. Hilltop Plaza will be funded through a $41.0 million construction loan from an unaffiliated third party bank, as well as cash contributions of $5.3 million from each of HTH Project LLC and Diamond Hillcrest. HTH Project LLC’s undivided interest in Hilltop Plaza is accounted for as an equity method investment as the tenants-in-common have joint control over decisions regarding Hilltop Plaza. The investment is included within other assets in the consolidated balance sheets and any income (loss) is included within other noninterest income in the consolidated statements of operations.

Hilltop and the Bank entered into leases for an aggregate of approximately 72,000 of the total 120,000 square feet of rentable space in Hilltop Plaza to serve as the headquarters for both companies. The two separate 129-month office and retail leases have combined total base rent of approximately $35 million with the first nine months of rent abated. Move-in is expected in the fourth quarter of 2019. The office and retail leases were considered under the build-to-suit provisions of ASC 840, and the Company was determined to be the accounting owner of the project as its affiliate, HTH Project LLC, has an equity investment in the project. As such, the assets of Hilltop Plaza are recognized during the construction period as costs are incurred to construct the asset, with a corresponding liability representing the costs paid for by the lessor (the Co-Owners). At September 30, 2018, the $23.8 million of costs incurred to date are included within premises and equipment and other liabilities, respectively, in the consolidated balance sheets. The Company will reassess its accounting ownership of the assets under construction as of January 1, 2019 upon implementation of ASC 842, the new lease accounting standard.

All intercompany transactions associated with the Hilltop Plaza investment and the related transactions discussed above are eliminated in consolidation.