COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 15)

Lease Commitments

Certain bank facilities are occupied under non-cancelable long-term operating leases, which expire at various dates through 2058. Certain lease agreements provide for renewal options and increases in rental payments based upon increases in the consumer price index or the lessors’ cost of operating the facility. Minimum aggregate lease payments for the remainder of the lease terms are as follows:



			Sublease
Year	Gross Rents		Rents		Net Rents
	(in thousands)
2018	$	26,535	$	2,259	$	24,276
2019	26,043		2,123		23,920
2020	26,150		2,077		24,073
2021	25,413		2,009		23,404
2022	24,559		1,891		22,668
Thereafter	257,986		8,130		249,856
Total lease commitments	$	386,686	$	18,489	$	368,197

Net occupancy expense for years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015 included net rental expense of $27.7 million, $27.7 million, and $31.7 million, respectively, net of rental income of $3.9 million, $4.0 million, and $3.8 million, respectively, for leased bank facilities.

Financial Instruments With Off-balance Sheet Risk

In the ordinary course of business in meeting the financial needs of its customers, Valley, through its subsidiary Valley National Bank, is a party to various financial instruments, which are not reflected in the consolidated financial statements. These financial instruments include standby and commercial letters of credit, unused portions of lines of credit and commitments to extend various types of credit. These instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the consolidated financial statements. The commitment or contract amount of these instruments is an indicator of the Bank’s level of involvement in each type of instrument as well as the exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by the other party to the financial instrument. The Bank seeks to limit any exposure of credit loss by applying the same credit policies in making commitments, as it does for on-balance sheet lending facilities.

The following table provides a summary of financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk at December 31, 2017 and 2016:



	2017		2016
	(in thousands)
Commitments under commercial loans and lines of credit	$	3,401,653	$	3,416,255
Home equity and other revolving lines of credit	1,006,329		904,999
Standby letters of credit	250,536		217,695
Outstanding residential mortgage loan commitments	192,685		108,063
Commitments to sell loans	57,405		147,250
Commitments under unused lines of credit—credit card	54,906		49,715
Commercial letters of credit	2,115		4,960

Obligations to advance funds under commitments to extend credit, including commitments under unused lines of credit, are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have specified expiration dates, which may be extended upon request, or other termination clauses and generally require payment of a fee. These commitments do not necessarily represent future cash requirements as it is anticipated that many of these commitments will expire without being fully drawn upon. The Bank’s lending activity for outstanding loan commitments is primarily to customers within the states of New Jersey, New York and Florida.

Standby letters of credit represent the guarantee by the Bank of the obligations or performance of the bank customer in the event of the default of payment or nonperformance to a third party beneficiary.

Loan sale commitments represent contracts for the sale of residential mortgage loans to third parties in the ordinary course of the Bank’s business. These commitments require the Bank to deliver loans within a specific period to the third party. The risk to the Bank is its non-delivery of loans required by the commitment, which could lead to financial penalties. The Bank has not defaulted on its loan sale commitments.

Litigation

In the normal course of business, Valley is a party to various outstanding legal proceedings and claims. In the opinion of management, the financial condition, results of operations and liquidity of Valley should not be materially affected by the outcome of such legal proceedings and claims. However, in the event of an adverse outcome or settlement in one or more of our legal proceedings, operating results for a particular period may be negatively impacted. Disclosure is required when a risk of material loss in a litigation or claim is more than remote. Disclosure is also required of the estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, unless an estimate cannot be made.

Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome, Valley has generally denied, or believes it has a meritorious defense and will deny liability in litigation pending against Valley and claims made, including the matters described below. Valley intends to defend vigorously each case against it. Liabilities are established for legal claims when payments associated with the claims become probable and the possible losses related to the matter can be reasonably estimated.

Merrick Bank Corporation v. Valley National Bank and American Express Travel Related Services v. Valley National Bank. For about a decade, Valley served as the depository bank for various charter operators under regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and contracts entered into with charter operators under those regulations. The purported intent of the regulations is to afford some protection to the customers of the charter operators. A charter operator has several options with regard to fulfilling its obligations under the regulations, with one option requiring the charter operator to deposit the proceeds of tickets purchased for a charter flight into an FDIC insured bank account. The funds for a flight are released when the charter operator certifies that the flight has been completed. Valley stopped serving as a depository bank for the charter business due to the narrow profit in that business combined with the legal expenses incurred to defend itself in a prior case in which Valley was completely successful and the anticipated legal expenses from the following similar cases that are still pending.

Valley served as the depository bank for Myrtle Beach Direct Air (Direct Air) under a contract between Direct Air and Valley approved by the DOT under the DOT regulations. Direct Air, a charter operator, commenced operations in 2007 but in March 2012 Direct Air ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy. Thereafter the United States Justice Department charged three of the principals of Direct Air with criminal fraud; that case is expected to go to trial in March 2018. Merrick Bank Corp. (Merrick) was the merchant bank for Direct Air and processed credit card purchases for Direct Air. Following the bankruptcy of Direct Air, Merrick incurred chargebacks in the approximate amount of $26.2 million when the Direct Air customers whose flights had been canceled obtained a credit from their card issuing banks for the cost of the ticket or other item purchased from Direct Air. Merrick was not able to recover the chargebacks from Direct Air. Direct Air’s depository account at Valley contained approximately $1.0 million at the time Direct Air ceased operations.

Merrick filed an action against Valley with ten counts in December 2013. Valley moved to dismiss five of the counts and, in March 2015, the court dismissed four of the five counts. American Express Travel Related Services (American Express) filed a similar action against Valley claiming about $3.0 million in chargebacks. Five of American Express’ eleven counts have been dismissed. The two cases have now been consolidated in the Federal District Court of New Jersey.

In April 2017, Valley filed summary judgment motions on all of the remaining counts in both the Merrick and American Express cases. Merrick and American Express also filed summary judgment motions against Valley. In an opinion in December 2017, the Court denied in their entirety the summary judgment motions filed by Merrick and American Express. The Court granted Valley summary judgment on four of the six remaining counts against Valley. The Court did not grant Valley summary judgment on the negligence and contract counts in the complaints. On December 14, 2017, Valley moved to have the court reconsider its decision not to grant summary judgment on those two counts. On January 29, 2018, the Court denied Valley’s motion for reconsideration. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for March 8, 2018 and the Court has set a Trial Date for April 10, 2018.

Maritza Gaston and George Gallart v. Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank. On April 6, 2017, Valley was served with a Class and Collective Action Complaint, filed in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that Valley had violated both Federal and State wage and hour laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeking to recover overtime compensation on behalf of a class of Valley employees. While Branch Service Managers are classified by Valley as “exempt” employees and do not receive overtime pay, plaintiff’s counsel claims that Branch Service Managers perform non-exempt duties, should therefore be classified as non-exempt hourly employees and should have been paid overtime for any time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Valley’s outside employment counsel filed an Answer on behalf of Valley disputing Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs filed a formal Notice for Conditional Certification of the Class, which was granted by the Federal Magistrate on December 6, 2017. On January 5, 2018, Valley filed an Objection Brief requesting that the Federal Judge assigned to this case overturn the Federal Magistrate’s Order for Certification. The Court has not acted on that request at the time of preparation of this report. The exact number of employees that may be part of the Class has not yet been determined and the plaintiff’s counsel has not yet asserted the amount of damages claimed. Plaintiffs and Valley have agreed to enter into non-binding mediation which is scheduled for March 27, 2018.

At December 31, 2017, Valley could not estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible losses related to both matters described above. Based upon information currently available and advice of counsel, Valley believes that the eventual outcome of such claims will not have a material adverse effect on Valley’s consolidated financial position. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of the matters, if unfavorable, may be material to Valley’s results of operations for a particular period.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Valley is exposed to certain risks arising from both its business operations and economic conditions. Valley principally manages its exposure to a wide variety of business and operational risks through management of its core business activities. Valley manages economic risks, including interest rate and liquidity risks, primarily by managing the amount, sources, and duration of its assets and liabilities and, from time to time, the use of derivative financial instruments. Specifically, Valley enters into derivative financial instruments to manage exposures that arise from business activities that result in the payment of future known and uncertain cash amounts, the value of which are determined by interest rates. Valley’s derivative financial instruments are used to manage differences in the amount, timing, and duration of Valley’s known or expected cash receipts and its known or expected cash payments related to assets and liabilities as outlined below.

Cash Flow Hedges of Interest Rate Risk. Valley’s objectives in using interest rate derivatives are to add stability to interest expense and to manage its exposure to interest rate movements. To accomplish this objective, Valley uses interest rate swaps and caps as part of its interest rate risk management strategy. Interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve the payment of either fixed or variable-rate amounts in exchange for the receipt of variable or fixed-rate amounts from a counterparty. Interest rate caps designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable-rate amounts from a counterparty if interest rates rise above the strike rate on the contract in exchange for an up-front premium.

At December 31, 2017, Valley had the following cash flow hedge derivatives:


•	One interest rate cap with a total notional amount of $125 million with a strike rate of 7.44 percent and a maturity date of September 27, 2023 used to hedge the total change in cash flows associated with prime-rate indexed deposits, consisting of consumer and commercial money market deposit accounts, which have variable interest rates indexed to the prime rate.

•

Three forward starting interest rate swaps with a total notional amount of $300 million to hedge the changes in cash flows associated with certain brokered money market deposits. Starting in November 2015, the interest rate swaps required Valley to pay fixed-rate amounts ranging from approximately 2.57 percent to 2.97 percent, in exchange for the receipt of variable-rate payments at the three-month LIBOR rate. The three swaps have expiration dates ranging from November 2018 to November 2020.

•

Four forward starting interest rate swaps with a total notional amount of $182 million to hedge the changes in cash flows associated with borrowed funds. Starting in March and April 2016, the interest rate swaps required Valley to pay fixed-rate amounts ranging from approximately 2.51 percent to 2.88 percent, in exchange for the receipt of variable-rate payments at the three-month LIBOR rate. The four swaps have expiration dates ranging from March 2019 to September 2020.

Fair Value Hedges of Fixed Rate Assets and Liabilities. Valley is exposed to changes in the fair value of certain of its fixed rate assets or liabilities due to changes in benchmark interest rates based on one-month LIBOR. From time to time, Valley uses interest rate swaps to manage its exposure to changes in fair value. Interest rate swaps designated as fair value hedges involve the receipt of variable rate payments from a counterparty in exchange for Valley making fixed rate payments over the life of the agreements without the exchange of the underlying notional amount. For derivatives that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges, the gain or loss on the derivative as well as the loss or gain on the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk are recognized in earnings. Valley includes the gain or loss on the hedged items in the same income statement line item as the loss or gain on the related derivatives.

At December 31, 2017, Valley had one interest rate swap with a notional amount of approximately $7.8 million used to hedge the change in the fair value of a commercial loan.

Non-designated Hedges. Derivatives not designated as hedges may be used to manage Valley’s exposure to interest rate movements or to provide service to customers but do not meet the requirements for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP. Derivatives not designated as hedges are not entered into for speculative purposes. Under a program, Valley executes interest rate swaps with commercial lending customers to facilitate their respective risk management strategies. These interest rate swaps with customers are simultaneously offset by interest rate swaps that Valley executes with a third party, such that Valley minimizes its net risk exposure resulting from such transactions. As the interest rate swaps associated with this program do not meet the strict hedge accounting requirements, changes in the fair value of both the customer swaps and the offsetting swaps are recognized directly in earnings.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, Valley entered into risk participation agreements with external lenders where banks are sharing their risk of default on the interest rate swaps on participated loans. Valley would either pay or receive a fee depending on the participation type. Risk participation agreements are credit derivatives not designated as hedges. Credit derivatives are not speculative and are not used to manage interest rate risk in assets or liabilities. Changes in the fair value in credit derivatives are recognized directly in earnings. At December 31, 2017, Valley had 7 credit swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $40.6 million related to risk participation agreements.

At December 31, 2017, Valley had one "steepener" swap with a total current notional amount of $14.5 million where the receive rate on the swap mirrors the pay rate on the brokered deposits. The rate paid on these types of hybrid instruments are based on a formula derived from the spread between the long and short ends of the constant maturity swap (CMS) rate curve. Although these types of instruments do not meet the hedge accounting requirements, the change in fair value of both the bifurcated derivative and the stand alone swap tend to move in opposite directions with changes in three-month LIBOR rate and therefore provide an effective economic hedge.

Valley regularly enters into mortgage banking derivatives which are non-designated hedges. These derivatives include interest rate lock commitments provided to customers to fund certain residential mortgage loans to be sold into the secondary market and forward commitments for the future delivery of such loans. Valley enters into forward commitments for the future delivery of residential mortgage loans when interest rate lock commitments are entered into in order to economically hedge the effect of future changes in interest rates on Valley’s commitments to fund the loans as well as on its portfolio of mortgage loans held for sale.

Amounts included in the consolidated statements of financial condition related to the fair value of Valley’s derivative financial instruments were as follows:



	December 31, 2017							December 31, 2016
	Fair Value							Fair Value
	Other Assets		Other Liabilities			Notional Amount		Other Assets		Other Liabilities		Notional Amount
	(in thousands)
Derivatives designated as hedging instruments:
Cash flow hedge interest rate caps and swaps	$	650	$	81	*	$	607,000	$	802	$	15,641	$	707,000
Fair value hedge interest rate swaps	—		637			7,775		—		986		7,999
Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments	$	650	$	718		$	614,775	$	802	$	16,627	$	714,999
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments:
Interest rate swaps, and embedded and credit derivatives	$	25,696	$	23,494	*	$	1,687,005	$	25,285	$	25,284	$	1,075,722
Mortgage banking derivatives	71		118			113,233		2,968		2,166		246,583
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments	$	25,767	$	23,612		$	1,800,238	$	28,253	$	27,450	$	1,322,305

* The fair value for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange cleared derivative positions is inclusive of accrued interest payable and the portion of the cash collateral representing the variation margin posted with (or by) the applicable counterparties.

Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) amended their rules to legally characterize the variation margin posted between counterparties to be classified as settlements of the outstanding derivative contracts instead of cash collateral. Effective January 1, 2017, Valley adopted the new rule on a prospective basis to classify its CME variation margin as a single-unit of account with the fair value of certain cash flow and non-designated derivative instruments. As a result, the fair value of the designated cash flow derivatives and non-designated interest rate swaps cleared with the CME were offset by variation margins totaling $9.5 million and $951 thousand, respectively, and reported in the table above on a net basis at December 31, 2017.

Gains (losses) included in the consolidated statements of income and in other comprehensive income (loss), on a pre-tax basis, related to interest rate derivatives designated as hedges of cash flows were as follows:



	2017			2016			2015
	(in thousands)
Amount of loss reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive loss to interest expense	$	(8,579	)	$	(13,034	)	$	(7,075	)
Amount of gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income	1,005			(4,035		)	(12,360		)

The net gains or losses related to cash flow hedge ineffectiveness were immaterial during the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. The accumulated net after-tax losses related to effective cash flow hedges included in accumulated other comprehensive loss were $8.3 million and $12.5 million at December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

Amounts reported in accumulated other comprehensive loss related to cash flow interest rate derivatives are reclassified to interest expense as interest payments are made on the hedged variable interest rate liabilities. Valley estimates that $4.8 million will be reclassified as an increase to interest expense in 2018.

Gains (losses) included in the consolidated statements of income related to interest rate derivatives designated as hedges of fair value were as follows:



	2017			2016			2015
	(in thousands)
Derivative—interest rate swaps:
Interest income	$	348		$	320		$	176
Interest expense	—			6,670			1,400
Hedged item—loans, deposits and long-term borrowings:
Interest income	$	(348	)	$	(320	)	$	(176	)
Interest expense	—			(6,645		)	(1,473		)

During the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, the amounts recognized in non-interest expense related to the ineffectiveness of fair value hedges were immaterial.

Net (losses) gains included in the consolidated statements of income related to derivative instruments not designated as hedging instruments were as follows:



	2017			2016		2015
	(in thousands)
Non-designated hedge interest rate and credit derivatives
Other non-interest expense	$	(744	)	$	690	$	158

Collateral Requirements and Credit Risk Related Contingency Features. By using derivatives, Valley is exposed to credit risk if counterparties to the derivative contracts do not perform as expected. Management attempts to minimize counterparty credit risk through credit approvals, limits, monitoring procedures and obtaining collateral where appropriate. Credit risk exposure associated with derivative contracts is managed at Valley in conjunction with Valley’s consolidated counterparty risk management process. Valley’s counterparties and the risk limits monitored by management are periodically reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors.

Valley has agreements with its derivative counterparties providing that if Valley defaults on any of its indebtedness, including default where repayment of the indebtedness has not been accelerated by the lender, then Valley could also be declared in default on its derivative counterparty agreements. Additionally, Valley has an agreement with several of its derivative counterparties that contains provisions that require Valley’s debt to maintain an investment grade credit rating from each of the major credit rating agencies from which it receives a credit rating. If Valley’s credit rating is reduced below investment grade, or such rating is withdrawn or suspended, then the counterparty could terminate the derivative positions and Valley would be required to settle its obligations under the agreements. As of December 31, 2017, Valley was in compliance with all of the provisions of its derivative counterparty agreements. As of December 31, 2017, the fair value of derivatives in a net liability position, which includes accrued interest but excludes any adjustment for nonperformance risk, related to these agreements was $9.2 million. Valley has derivative counterparty agreements that require minimum collateral posting thresholds for certain counterparties. At December 31, 2017, Valley had $41.9 million in collateral posted with its counterparties, net of CME variation margin.