COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES The nature of the Company’s business ordinarily results in a certain amount of claims, litigation, investigations and legal and administrative cases and proceedings. Although the Company and its subsidiaries have developed policies and procedures to minimize the impact of legal noncompliance and other disputes, and endeavored to provide reasonable insurance coverage, litigation and regulatory actions present an ongoing risk. The Company and its subsidiaries are engaged in lines of business that are heavily regulated and involve a large volume of financial transactions and potential transactions with numerous customers or applicants. From time to time, borrowers, customers, former employees and other third parties have brought actions against the Company or its subsidiaries, in some cases claiming substantial damages. Financial services companies are subject to the risk of class action litigation and, from time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to such actions brought against it. Additionally, the Bank is, and management expects it to be, engaged in a number of foreclosure proceedings and other collection actions as part of its lending and leasing collections activities, which, from time to time, have resulted in counterclaims against the Bank. Various legal proceedings have arisen and may arise in the future out of claims against entities to which the Company is a successor as a result of business combinations. The Company’s insurance has deductibles, and will likely not cover all such litigation or other proceedings or the costs of defense. The Company and its subsidiaries may also be subject to enforcement actions by federal or state regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), state attorneys general and the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance. When and as the Company determines it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, it vigorously defends against such claims. The Company will consider settlement of claims when, in management’s judgment and in consultation with counsel, it is in the best interests of the Company to do so. The Company cannot predict with certainty the cost of defense, the cost of prosecution or the ultimate outcome of litigation and other proceedings filed by or against it, its directors, management or employees, including remedies or damage awards. On at least a quarterly basis, the Company assesses its liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal proceedings as well as certain threatened claims (which are not considered incidental to the ordinary conduct of the Company’s business) utilizing the latest and most reliable information available. For matters where a loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be estimated, no accrual is established. For matters where it is probable the Company will incur a loss and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the loss. Once established, the accrual is adjusted periodically to reflect any relevant developments. The actual cost of any outstanding legal proceedings or threatened claims, however, may turn out to be substantially higher than the amount accrued. Further, the Company’s insurance will not cover all such litigation, other proceedings or claims, or the costs of defense. While the final outcome of any legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on the information available, advice of counsel and available insurance coverage, management believes that the litigation-related expense of $8.5 million accrued as of March 31, 2016 is adequate and that any incremental liability arising from the Company’s legal proceedings and threatened claims, including the matters described herein and those otherwise arising in the ordinary course of business, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or consolidated financial condition. It is possible, however, that future developments could result in an unfavorable outcome for or resolution of any one or more of the lawsuits in which the Company or its subsidiaries are defendants, which may be material to the Company’s results of operations for a given fiscal period. On January 5, 2016, the Bank entered into an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim under Arkansas’ consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of $16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts to be paid in connection with the settlement net amounts the Company had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previous periods. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts accrued for settlement were paid into settlement escrow funds. The Company can provide no assurance that such approval will occur in any specific time frame or at all. On August 16, 2011, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of the Company in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi, against certain current and past executive officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company. The plaintiff in this shareholder derivative lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. The plaintiff is seeking to recover alleged damages in an unspecified amount, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was granted by the Court on January 5, 2015, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that decision on February 2, 2015. On April 14, 2016, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the lower Court’s dismissal of the case against the Company. Although the plaintiff could petition for a rehearing by the Mississippi Court, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company’s common stock. The complaint has subsequently been amended to add the former President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning the Company’s expectation that it would be able to close two merger transactions within a specified time period and the Company’s compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. On July 10, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning the Company’s expectations about the closing of the mergers. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys’ fees and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. The CFPB and the DOJ have been jointly investigating the Bank’s fair lending program. The Bank has begun settlement discussions with the CFPB and the DOJ, but there is no guarantee that a settlement agreement will be reached. If the parties fail to reach an agreement on settlement terms, and if the CFPB and/or the DOJ determine to bring public enforcement actions, such actions could include demands for civil money penalties and/or assessments, changes to certain of the Bank’s business practices and/or compliance programs, enhanced monitoring and/or customer restitution. Even though the Company and the Bank are unable at this time to determine the final terms on which these investigations will be resolved, the timing of such resolution or the impact of such resolution on the Company’s pending mergers, the Company accrued a total pre-tax charge of $13.8 million during the first quarter of 2016 to record a probable and estimable liability associated with this matter, as well as related legal and consulting expense, $10.3 million of which is reflected as regulatory settlement expense and $3.5 million of which is included in other noninterest expense. Should a final settlement be reached, the final liability could differ materially from this estimate, and if the CFPB and/or the DOJ do bring public enforcement actions, the resolution of such actions could have a materially adverse effect on the Company and the Bank’s assets, business, cash flows, financial condition, liquidity, prospects and/or results of operations during the period in which any such action is resolved.

NOTE 16 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

The nature of the Company’s business ordinarily results in a certain amount of claims, litigation, investigations and legal and administrative cases and proceedings. Although the Company and its subsidiaries have developed policies and procedures to minimize the impact of legal noncompliance and other disputes, and endeavored to provide reasonable insurance coverage, litigation and regulatory actions present an ongoing risk.

The Company and its subsidiaries are engaged in lines of business that are heavily regulated and involve a large volume of financial transactions and potential transactions with numerous customers or applicants. From time to time, borrowers, customers, former employees and other third parties have brought actions against the Company or its subsidiaries, in some cases claiming substantial damages. Financial services companies are subject to the risk of class action litigation and, from time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to such actions brought against it. Additionally, the Bank is, and management expects it to be, engaged in a number of foreclosure proceedings and other collection actions as part of its lending and leasing collections activities, which, from time to time, have resulted in counterclaims against the Bank. Various legal proceedings have arisen and may arise in the future out of claims against entities to which the Company is a successor as a result of business combinations. The Company’s insurance has deductibles, and will likely not cover all such litigation or other proceedings or the costs of defense. The Company and its subsidiaries may also be subject to enforcement actions by federal or state regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), state attorneys general and the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance.

When and as the Company determines it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, it vigorously defends against such claims. The Company will consider settlement of claims when, in management’s judgment and in consultation with counsel, it is in the best interests of the Company to do so.

The Company cannot predict with certainty the cost of defense, the cost of prosecution or the ultimate outcome of litigation and other proceedings filed by or against it, its directors, management or employees, including remedies or damage awards. On at least a quarterly basis, the Company assesses its liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal proceedings as well as certain threatened claims (which are not considered incidental to the ordinary conduct of the Company’s business) utilizing the latest and most reliable information available. For matters where a loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be estimated, no accrual is established. For matters where it is probable the Company will incur a loss and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company establishes an accrual for the loss. Once established, the accrual is adjusted periodically to reflect any relevant developments. The actual cost of any outstanding legal proceedings or threatened claims, however, may turn out to be substantially higher than the amount accrued. Further, the Company’s insurance will not cover all such litigation, other proceedings or claims, or the costs of defense.

While the final outcome of any legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on the information available, advice of counsel and available insurance coverage, management believes that the litigation-related expense of $8.5 million accrued as of March 31, 2016 is adequate and that any incremental liability arising from the Company’s legal proceedings and threatened claims, including the matters described herein and those otherwise arising in the ordinary course of business, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business or consolidated financial condition. It is possible, however, that future developments could result in an unfavorable outcome for or resolution of any one or more of the lawsuits in which the Company or its subsidiaries are defendants, which may be material to the Company’s results of operations for a given fiscal period.

On January 5, 2016, the Bank entered into an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim under Arkansas’ consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of $16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts to be paid in connection with the settlement net amounts the Company had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previous periods. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts accrued for settlement were paid into settlement escrow funds. The Company can provide no assurance that such approval will occur in any specific time frame or at all.

On August 16, 2011, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of the Company in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi, against certain current and past executive officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company. The plaintiff in this shareholder derivative lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. The plaintiff is seeking to recover alleged damages in an unspecified amount, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was granted by the Court on January 5, 2015, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that decision on February 2, 2015. On April 14, 2016, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the lower Court’s dismissal of the case against the Company. Although the plaintiff could petition for a rehearing by the Mississippi Court, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company’s common stock. The complaint has subsequently been amended to add the former President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning the Company’s expectation that it would be able to close two merger transactions within a specified time period and the Company’s compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. On July 10, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning the Company’s expectations about the closing of the mergers. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys’ fees and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position or results of operations.

The CFPB and the DOJ have been jointly investigating the Bank’s fair lending program. The Bank has begun settlement discussions with the CFPB and the DOJ, but there is no guarantee that a settlement agreement will be reached. If the parties fail to reach an agreement on settlement terms, and if the CFPB and/or the DOJ determine to bring public enforcement actions, such actions could include demands for civil money penalties and/or assessments, changes to certain of the Bank’s business practices and/or compliance programs, enhanced monitoring and/or customer restitution. Even though the Company and the Bank are unable at this time to determine the final terms on which these investigations will be resolved, the timing of such resolution or the impact of such resolution on the Company’s pending mergers, the Company accrued a total pre-tax charge of $13.8 million during the first quarter of 2016 to record a probable and estimable liability associated with this matter, as well as related legal and consulting expense, $10.3 million of which is reflected as regulatory settlement expense and $3.5 million of which is included in other noninterest expense. Should a final settlement be reached, the final liability could differ materially from this estimate, and if the CFPB and/or the DOJ do bring public enforcement actions, the resolution of such actions could have a materially adverse effect on the Company and the Bank’s assets, business, cash flows, financial condition, liquidity, prospects and/or results of operations during the period in which any such action is resolved.