Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Financial Instruments with Off-Balance-Sheet Risk In the normal course of business, we make use of a number of different financial instruments to help meet the financial needs of our customers. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, these transactions are not presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements and are referred to as off-balance sheet instruments. These transactions and activities include commitments to extend lines of commercial and real estate mortgage credit and standby and commercial letters of credit. A loan commitment is a binding contract to lend up to a maximum amount for a specified period of time provided there is no violation of any financial, economic, or other terms of the contract. A standby letter of credit obligates us to honor a financial commitment to a third party should our customer fail to perform. Many loan commitments and most standby letters of credit expire unfunded, and, therefore, total commitments do not represent our future funding obligations. Loan commitments and letters of credit are made under normal credit terms, including interest rates and collateral prevailing at the time, and usually require the payment of a fee by the customer. Commercial letters of credit are commitments generally issued to finance the movement of goods between buyers and sellers. Our exposure to credit loss, assuming commitments are funded, in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. We do not anticipate any material losses as a result of the commitments. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our loan commitments were $429.3 million and $429.4 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our standby letters of credit obligations were $6.1 million and $7.2 million, respectively. Customer Risk Management Interest Rate Swap On September 9, 2014, we entered into an agreement to provide one of our commercial borrowers a customer interest rate swap that effectively converts the loan interest rate from a floating rate based on LIBOR to a fixed rate for the customer. As of June 30, 2017, the floating rate loan had an outstanding balance of $14.2 million. The option to execute the swap is conditional on the borrower’s compliance with the loan and swap agreements, and will be subject to the terms of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement. The fixed pay amount will be based on the market rates at the time of execution, and it is our intention to simultaneously execute an offsetting trade with an approved swap dealer counterparty with identical terms. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had eight risk participation agreements and seven risk participation agreements, respectively, with financial institution counterparties for interest rate swaps related to loans in which we are a participant. The risk participation agreements provide credit protection to the financial institution should the borrower fail to perform on its interest rate derivative contract with the financial institution. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the current notional amount for these transactions were $51.6 million and $34.7 million, respectively. Legal Action On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation (“Sallie Mae”), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the “Ubaldi Case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs’ usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs. Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the “Notice”). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case. In the normal course of business, we are at all times subject to various pending and threatened legal actions. The relief or damages sought in some of these actions may be substantial. After reviewing pending and threatened actions with counsel, management currently does not expect that the outcome of such actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position; however, we are not able to predict whether the outcome of such actions may or may not have a material adverse effect on results of operations in a particular future period as the timing and amount of any resolution of such actions and relationship to the future results of operations are not known. Pending Merger Update We previously announced a definitive agreement and plan of merger with and into Simmons First National Corporation (NASDAQ-GS: SFNC). The merger application for this transaction was filed on July 14, 2017. Conversion and integration plans are in process. Subject to regulatory approval and the satisfaction of other closing conditions, we anticipate a closing date as early as October 2017 or as late as January 2018.

NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Financial Instruments with Off-Balance-Sheet Risk

In the normal course of business, we make use of a number of different financial instruments to help meet the financial needs of our customers. In accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, these transactions are not presented in the accompanying consolidated financial statements and are referred to as off-balance sheet instruments. These transactions and activities include commitments to extend lines of commercial and real estate mortgage credit and standby and commercial letters of credit.

A loan commitment is a binding contract to lend up to a maximum amount for a specified period of time provided there is no violation of any financial, economic, or other terms of the contract. A standby letter of credit obligates us to honor a financial commitment to a third party should our customer fail to perform. Many loan commitments and most standby letters of credit expire unfunded, and, therefore, total commitments do not represent our future funding obligations. Loan commitments and letters of credit are made under normal credit terms, including interest rates and collateral prevailing at the time, and usually require the payment of a fee by the customer. Commercial letters of credit are commitments generally issued to finance the movement of goods between buyers and sellers. Our exposure to credit loss, assuming commitments are funded, in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. We do not anticipate any material losses as a result of the commitments.

As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our loan commitments were $429.3 million and $429.4 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our standby letters of credit obligations were $6.1 million and $7.2 million, respectively.

Customer Risk Management Interest Rate Swap

On September 9, 2014, we entered into an agreement to provide one of our commercial borrowers a customer interest rate swap that effectively converts the loan interest rate from a floating rate based on LIBOR to a fixed rate for the customer. As of June 30, 2017, the floating rate loan had an outstanding balance of $14.2 million. The option to execute the swap is conditional on the borrower’s compliance with the loan and swap agreements, and will be subject to the terms of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement. The fixed pay amount will be based on the market rates at the time of execution, and it is our intention to simultaneously execute an offsetting trade with an approved swap dealer counterparty with identical terms.

As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had eight risk participation agreements and seven risk participation agreements, respectively, with financial institution counterparties for interest rate swaps related to loans in which we are a participant. The risk participation agreements provide credit protection to the financial institution should the borrower fail to perform on its interest rate derivative contract with the financial institution. As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the current notional amount for these transactions were $51.6 million and $34.7 million, respectively.

Legal Action

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation (“Sallie Mae”), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the “Ubaldi Case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs’ usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the “Notice”). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case.

In the normal course of business, we are at all times subject to various pending and threatened legal actions. The relief or damages sought in some of these actions may be substantial. After reviewing pending and threatened actions with counsel, management currently does not expect that the outcome of such actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position; however, we are not able to predict whether the outcome of such actions may or may not have a material adverse effect on results of operations in a particular future period as the timing and amount of any resolution of such actions and relationship to the future results of operations are not known.

Pending Merger Update

We previously announced a definitive agreement and plan of merger with and into Simmons First National Corporation (NASDAQ-GS: SFNC). The merger application for this transaction was filed on July 14, 2017. Conversion and integration plans are in process. Subject to regulatory approval and the satisfaction of other closing conditions, we anticipate a closing date as early as October 2017 or as late as January 2018.