Legal Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal Contingencies [Abstract]
LEGAL CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 11 — LEGAL CONTINGENCIES On November 15, 2010, the Bank filed suit against Open Solutions, Inc., (“OSI”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking damages for failure to assist in the conversion of system and customer information associated with the former USA Bank and requesting injunctive relief to compel OSI to assist with the deconversion of the former USA Bank’s systems. OSI filed counterclaims against the Bank on November 24, 2010, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of settlement agreement. In support of its contract claim, OSI alleged that the Bank “assumed” the former-USA Bank agreements and is bound by those agreements. OSI claimed that it has sustained damages in excess of $1 million. The Bank disputed that it has any liability to OSI. Prior to trial, OSI dismissed with prejudice its settlement agreement claim. Trial was held on February 24, 2011. On March 7, 2011, the Court ruled against the Bank and in favor of OSI as follows: judgment was entered against the Bank on OSI’s claim that the agreements between OSI and USA Bank were assumed by the Bank and judgment was entered against the Bank on its claims against OSI; judgment was entered for OSI on its breach of contract claim under one agreement, in the amount of $104 thousand; the Court found there was no breach of the second agreement by the Bank and no proof of damages. OSI filed a motion for payment of legal fees and costs associated with litigation, which are estimated to be around $0.2 million. The Bank filed a motion with the District Court to vacate the judgment and to enter judgment in favor of the Bank on OSI’s counterclaim. In addition, the FDIC filed a motion to intervene in the litigation, and has also sought dismissal of OSI’s counterclaims on jurisdictional grounds. On May 3, 2011, the Court granted the FDIC’s motion to intervene, and directed that OSI respond to the motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 9, 2011, the District Court granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss and vacated the judgment entered against the Bank. The Court denied the Bank’s post-trial motion as moot because of the Court’s vacatur of the judgment. On September 2, 2011, OSI filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in which OSI appeals from the Court’s August 9, 2011 Order granting the FDIC’s motion to dismiss. On April 27, 2012, however, OSI withdrew its appeal, which left in place the District Court’s dismissal of OSI’s counterclaim and concluded the litigation between the parties.

Legal Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

NOTE 11 — LEGAL CONTINGENCIES

On November 15, 2010, the Bank filed suit against Open Solutions, Inc., (“OSI”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking damages for failure to assist in the conversion of system and customer information associated with the former USA Bank and requesting injunctive relief to compel OSI to assist with the deconversion of the former USA Bank’s systems. OSI filed counterclaims against the Bank on November 24, 2010, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of settlement agreement. In support of its contract claim, OSI alleged that the Bank “assumed” the former-USA Bank agreements and is bound by those agreements. OSI claimed that it has sustained damages in excess of $1 million. The Bank disputed that it has any liability to OSI. Prior to trial, OSI dismissed with prejudice its settlement agreement claim. Trial was held on February 24, 2011.

On March 7, 2011, the Court ruled against the Bank and in favor of OSI as follows: judgment was entered against the Bank on OSI’s claim that the agreements between OSI and USA Bank were assumed by the Bank and judgment was entered against the Bank on its claims against OSI; judgment was entered for OSI on its breach of contract claim under one agreement, in the amount of $104 thousand; the Court found there was no breach of the second agreement by the Bank and no proof of damages. OSI filed a motion for payment of legal fees and costs associated with litigation, which are estimated to be around $0.2 million. The Bank filed a motion with the District Court to vacate the judgment and to enter judgment in favor of the Bank on OSI’s counterclaim. In addition, the FDIC filed a motion to intervene in the litigation, and has also sought dismissal of OSI’s counterclaims on jurisdictional grounds. On May 3, 2011, the Court granted the FDIC’s motion to intervene, and directed that OSI respond to the motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 9, 2011, the District Court granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss and vacated the judgment entered against the Bank. The Court denied the Bank’s post-trial motion as moot because of the Court’s vacatur of the judgment. On September 2, 2011, OSI filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in which OSI appeals from the Court’s August 9, 2011 Order granting the FDIC’s motion to dismiss. On April 27, 2012, however, OSI withdrew its appeal, which left in place the District Court’s dismissal of OSI’s counterclaim and concluded the litigation between the parties.