FLAGSTAR BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONFLG
FLAGSTAR BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Loan Commitments and Letters of Credit
In the normal course of business, we have various commitments outstanding to extend credit in the form of loan originations, as well as commercial, performance and financial stand-by letters of credit, which are not included on our Consolidated Statements of Condition.
The following table summarizes our off-balance sheet commitments to originate loans and letters of credit:
| December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2025 | 2024 | ||||||||||
Multi-family and commercial real estate(1) | $ | 553 | $ | 2,478 | |||||||
| One-to-four family including interest rate locks | 1,031 | 725 | |||||||||
| Other loan commitments | 9,099 | 9,837 | |||||||||
| Total loan commitments | $ | 10,683 | $ | 13,040 | |||||||
| Stand-by letters of credit | 628 | 803 | |||||||||
Total commitments(2) | $ | 11,311 | $ | 13,843 | |||||||
(1)Includes ADC loans.
(2)The allowance for unfunded commitments is $55 million and $50 million as of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, and is included in Other liabilities.
These commitments consist of agreements to extend credit as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract under which the loan is made. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require the payment of a fee. The fees we collect in connection with the issuance of letters of credit are included in Fee income in the Consolidated Statements of (Loss) Income.
These instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk beyond the amount recognized on the Consolidated Statements of Condition. Our exposure to credit losses in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The contractual amount of standby letters of credit represents the maximum potential amount of future payments that we could be required to make and represents our maximum credit risk. We utilize the same credit policies in making commitments and conditional obligations as funded loans.
Legal Proceedings
We are involved in various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business, including stockholder, class and derivative actions. The outcome of pending or threatened litigation, or of investigations or any other matters before regulatory agencies is uncertain, whether currently existing or commencing in the future, including with respect to any litigation, investigation or other regulatory actions related to: (i) the business and disclosure practices of acquired companies, including our acquisition of Flagstar Bancorp and the purchase and assumption of certain assets and liabilities of Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. (“Signature”), (ii) the capital raise transaction we completed in March of 2024, (iii) our past material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, (iv) past cyber security breaches, and (v) recent events and circumstances involving the Bank, including our full year 2023 earnings announcement, disclosures regarding credit losses, provisioning and goodwill impairment, and negative news and expectations about the prospects of the Bank (and associated stock price volatility and changes).
We have established an accrual related to the legal actions where we believe that a loss is probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the accrual for legal actions was immaterial. When we can do so, we also determine estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses, whether in excess of any related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability. We currently estimate that the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued at December 31, 2025 is immaterial.
There can be no assurance: (i) that we will not incur material losses due to damages, penalties, costs and/or expenses as a result of such litigation, investigations or regulatory proceedings, (ii) that the reserves we have established will be sufficient to cover such losses, or (iii) that such losses will not materially exceed such reserves and have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations. We may incur significant legal expenses in defending such litigation, or as a result of our involvement in such investigations or regulatory proceedings, during the pendency of these matters, and in connection with any other potential cases, including expenses for the potential reimbursement of legal fees of officers and directors under indemnification obligations.
Securities Litigation
Flagstar and certain former executive officers of Flagstar and certain current and former directors of Flagstar have been named as defendants in a consolidated purported shareholder class action captioned Lemm, Jr. v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00903, filed on February 6, 2024 (and later amended on September 6, 2024) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This action seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be proven at trial, alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5, with respect to disclosures concerning our business, operations and prospects, particularly regarding the impact of the Flagstar Bancorp and Signature transactions and the Bank’s CRE loan portfolio and related matters, that were made in our public SEC filings and press releases during the period beginning on July 27, 2022 and ending on February 29, 2024. In addition, plaintiffs allege claims of violations of various federal securities laws related to the registration statement filed by NYCB in connection with its merger with Flagstar in 2022.
On December 19, 2024, another purported shareholder of Flagstar filed an additional purported shareholder class action, captioned Garfield v. Flagstar Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08655, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers of Flagstar. This additional purported class action alleged substantially the same claims as those set forth in the Lemm complaint and the plaintiff has filed a motion to consolidate this matter with the Lemm matter. On April 28, 2025, the Court entered a stipulated order consolidating the Lemm and Garfield matters. The action formerly known as Lemm was then recaptioned by the Court to In re: New York Community Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation. On August 8, 2025, Flagstar and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss for this matter which is pending decision by the Court. We are vigorously defending the allegations set forth in the purported class action complaints and also intend to vigorously defend any related actions.
Flagstar's former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as well as all of Flagstar’s directors as of January 31, 2024, have also been named as defendants in the following purported shareholder derivative actions: Hauser v. Cangemi, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01207, filed on February 15, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Pierce v. Cangemi, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01408, filed on February 26, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Karp v. Cangemi et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01421, filed on February 26, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; Wang v. Cangemi et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-01422, filed on February 26, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and Podems v. Cangemi, et al., Case No. 608697/2024, filed on May 17, 2024 in the Supreme Court of New York State (Nassau County). These actions, which also name Flagstar as a nominal defendant and seek unspecified compensatory damages and certain corporate governance and internal procedures reforms, allege claims of breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting with respect to the director defendants, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act with respect to the officer defendants. The allegations in the complaints relate to disclosures concerning our business, operations and prospects, particularly regarding the impact of the Flagstar Bancorp and Signature transactions and the Bank’s CRE loan portfolio and related matters, that were made in our public SEC filings and press releases during the period beginning on March 1, 2023 and ending on January 31, 2024, as well as the defendants’ management of Flagstar during such period. The parties filed a stipulated motion to consolidate and stay the related matters, pending the entry of a decision on the defendants' motions to dismiss in the related federal securities class action, which was granted by the court on August 18, 2025. The order re-captioned the action as In Re: New York Community Bank Stockholder Derivative Litigation. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on October 29, 2025. Flagstar has filed a notice to remove the Podems state derivative action to federal court. On March 3, 2025, the federal magistrate granted Podems’ motion to remand the derivative case back to New York state court. Flagstar filed an objection. On April 9, 2025, the judge entered an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. Therefore, the Podems matter will now proceed in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County. On May 27, 2025, the court entered a stipulated order to stay the Podems action in New York State court until the resolution of the motion to dismiss the federal securities class action. Flagstar and the named defendants are vigorously defending these actions and also intend to vigorously defend any related actions.
Cyber breach incidents
Flagstar has been named as a defendant in three different sets of purported class actions related to three separate cyber breach incidents. Flagstar has vigorously defended these actions and also intends to vigorously defend any future or related actions. The first set, captioned Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank, Case No. 2:21-cv-10657-MFL-DRG, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, relates to a data breach that occurred in January 2021, after threat actors exploited vulnerabilities in a File Transfer Appliance (FTA) used by Flagstar Bancorp, which was acquired by Flagstar in December 2022, to gain access to confidential customer information. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be proven at trial and alleges breach of implied-in-fact contract, breach of confidence and public disclosure of private fact and also violations of various California consumer protection laws. On March 27, 2025, the court granted Flagstar’s motion to dismiss as to certain allegations and denied Flagstar’s motion to dismiss as to certain other allegations. On April 4, 2025, the court entered a stipulated Order to Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation. The order stayed the matter for 90 days, to allow the parties to participate in mediation to resolve both this matter and the In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation matter, discussed below.
The second set, captioned In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-11385 is comprised of twenty purported class action lawsuits that were consolidated into a single action filed on June 23, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and relates to a cyber breach of Flagstar Bancorp’s information technology system that occurred in December 2021. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages to be proven at trial and alleges common law and statutory claims associated with the exposure of customers’ Personally Identifiable Information (PII) as a result of the data breach and seeks class certification. On September 30, 2024, the court dismissed 17 of the 18 claims in the plaintiff’s consolidated complaint, allowing only the claim under the California Consumer Privacy Act to proceed, thereby limiting participation in the action to California class members. On April 4, 2025, the court entered a stipulated Order to Stay Proceedings Pending Mediation. The order stayed the matter for 90 days, to allow the parties to participate in mediation to resolve this matter and the Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank matter, discussed above.
On August 8, 2025, the parties reached a global settlement for both In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation and Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank. The settlement, which requires court approval would fully resolve the common law and statutory claims of all potential claimants associated with the combined lawsuits. In order to consolidate the two data breach cases, In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation was reassigned to the judge presiding over Phillip Angus et al v. Flagstar Bank. An order was issued on August 25, 2025, closing out In re: Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation and consolidating the two cases into the Angus matter (Case No. 2:21-cv-10657 (E.D. Mich.). As part of the global settlement process, Plaintiffs first filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 24, 2025 and then, on October 1, 2025, filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement with the Court. On January 15, 2026, the court scheduled a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February 20, 2026, following a hearing, the Court requested the Plaintiff's submit a written order to the Court for its approval. We await entry of the Order granting preliminary approval.
The third set, captioned In re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL, includes four purported class action lawsuits filed against Flagstar Bank, N.A in October 2023 that are part of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) case, captioned as, In Re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts. The class actions involving Flagstar allege claims of negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims related to the MOVEit data breach, and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Litigation involving Flagstar is currently stayed pending ongoing court proceedings against a representative group of the larger class actions and which are intended to address critical legal and factual issues common to the parties.
Signature Bridge Bank
On March 20, 2023, Flagstar Bank entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the FDIC, as receiver of Signature, to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of Signature (the “Signature Transaction”). In connection with the Signature Transaction, Flagstar Bank assumed all of Signature’s branches. Flagstar Bank acquired only certain parts of Signature it believed to be financially and strategically complementary that were intended to enhance its future growth.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Flagstar Bank was not required to make a cash payment to the FDIC on March 20, 2023, as consideration for the acquired assets and assumed liabilities. Any items identified that affected the bargain gain were recorded in the period they were identified as a result of ongoing discussion that impacted the assets and liabilities acquired or assumed through the three months end March 31, 2024. Due to the complexity of the transaction that included only certain assets and liabilities of Signature and the servicing agreement, which ceased on March 20, 2024, Flagstar Bank remains engaged with the FDIC regarding the net settlement of historical activity and the amounts assumed at the transaction date as well as the balances of certain assets and liabilities at the time of the Signature Transaction. This is expected to take time to resolve and may result in net settlement payments to or from the FDIC which could impact other income or expense which, although not expected, could be material to the financial statements in future periods.
Interest on Escrow Preemption
Flagstar Bank is pursuing an appeal of a trial court’s decision that it had violated California Civil Code section 2954.8(a), which requires financial institutions to pay at least 2% interest annually on escrow accounts associated with mortgage loans. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit, asserting that Flagstar's refusal to pay interest on California mortgage escrow accounts was an unlawful business act or practice under California law. In response, Flagstar argued that applicable California law was preempted by the NBA because it significantly interfered with Flagstar’s exercise of its federal powers. The district court certified a class of California borrowers, rejected Flagstar’s preemption argument, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability, holding Flagstar liable for failing to pay interest on escrowed funds. The court later enjoined Flagstar to pay interest going forward, and awarded the class $9.3 million in restitution and prejudgment interest. Flagstar then posted a bond with the trial court to stay enforcement of the judgment while Flagstar appealed. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s preemption holding, based on Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A., 883 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2018), wherein the Court ruled that the NBA did not preempt California’s interest on escrow statute as applied to another national bank.
In Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 49 F.4th 121 (2d Cir. 2022), a separate action not involving Flagstar, the Second Circuit reached a contrary conclusion about preemption of New York’s interest-on-escrow law. Both Flagstar and the Cantero plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to resolve the conflict. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cantero and reversed. The Court held instead that in applying Dodd-Frank’s codified Barnett Bank standard, courts must conduct a “nuanced comparative analysis” lining up the challenged state law against those the Supreme Court previously examined in its precedents “on which Barnett Bank relied.” On June 10, 2024, the Supreme Court granted Flagstar’s certiorari petition, vacated the panel’s initial decision, and remanded “for consideration in light of Cantero” Flagstar Bank, N.A. v. Kivett, No. 22-349.
On remand, the panel issued a new memorandum disposition decision similar to its pre-Cantero decision and held again that Lusnak’s “unqualified” language controlled and thus California law was not preempted. After Flagstar sought panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, the panel requested supplemental briefing and argument. The panel then issued a new published decision, again affirming the district court’s preemption holding. On November 17, 2025, Flagstar filed its petition for re-hearing en banc, arguing a rehearing is warranted in order to bring the Ninth Circuit’s precedents in line with Cantero.
In November, 2025, the OCC and supporting trade groups filed amicus briefs in support of Flagstar’s rehearing petition. On December 8, 2025, the Ninth Circuit ordered plaintiffs to respond to Flagstar’s petition for rehearing en banc. Plaintiff’s response to Flagstar's petition was filed on January 28, 2026. Flagstar has vigorously defended this action, and intends to continue its defense in this matter by pursuing all available appellate recourse.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 27, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Mar 4, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Mar 14, 2024 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.