Bancorp, Inc. Commitments Disclosure
Operating Leases
The Company determines if an arrangement is a lease at inception. Operating lease right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and operating lease liabilities are included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. ROU assets represent the Company’s right-of-use of an underlying asset for the lease term, and lease liabilities represent the Company’s obligation to make lease payments pursuant to the Company’s leases. The ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at commencement of the lease based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term. To determine the present value of lease payments, the Company uses its incremental borrowing rate. The lease term may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Company will exercise that option. Lease expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term.
As of December 31, 2025, the Company leases its executive offices in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Wilmington, Delaware, and has offices supporting its operations in cities including: New York, New York; Norristown, Pennsylvania; Smithfield, Utah; Crofton, Maryland; Morrisville, North Carolina; and Westmont, Illinois. The weighted-average remaining lease term on these properties is 10.5 years as of December 31, 2025.
These leases require the Company to pay the real estate taxes and insurance on the leased properties in addition to rent. The approximate future minimum annual rental payments, including any additional rents for escalation clauses, are as follows (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
Year ending December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026 |
| $ | 4,218 |
2027 |
|
| 4,209 |
2028 |
|
| 2,728 |
2029 |
|
| 2,045 |
2030 |
|
| 2,080 |
Thereafter |
|
| 15,862 |
|
| $ | 31,142 |
Less: imputed interest |
|
| (11,184) |
Total operating lease liability recognized in |
| $ | 19,958 |
Rent and related expense for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023 were approximately $5.1 million, $5.4 million and $4.3 million net of sublease rentals of approximately $203,000, $406,000 and $406,000, respectively.
For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, cash payments for operating lease liabilities that were included in operating cashflows were $4.4 million and $4.6 million, respectively.
Off-Balance Sheet Risk—Commitments to Extend Credit
The Company is a party to financial instruments with off-balance-sheet risk in the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its customers. Commitments to extend credit total $2.20 billion as of December 31, 2025, and represent amounts unfunded under existing loan agreements, where there is capacity for the customer to borrow additional amounts as long as there is no violation of any condition of the contract.
The Company estimates its expected credit losses over the entire period in which there is exposure to credit risk via a contractual obligation to extend credit, unless that obligation is unconditionally cancellable by the Company. A provision for unfunded commitments is recognized for the estimated credit loss on unfunded commitments that considers the likelihood that funding will occur over the estimated life of the commitment. The amount of the reserve on such exposures as of December 31, 2025 and as of December 31, 2024 was $1.4 million and $2.0 million, respectively, and is recognized within Other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Legal Proceedings
On June 12, 2019, the Bank was served with a qui tam lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. The Delaware Department of Justice intervened in the litigation. The case is titled The State of Delaware, Plaintiff, Ex rel. Russell S. Rogers, Plaintiff-Relator v. The Bancorp Bank, Interactive Communications International, Inc., and InComm Financial Services, Inc., Defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act by not paying balances on certain open-loop “Vanilla” prepaid cards to the State of Delaware as unclaimed property. The complaint seeks actual and treble damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. The Bank has filed an answer denying the allegations and continues to vigorously defend against the claims. The Bank and other defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss the action, but that motion to dismiss was denied and the parties proceeded to engage in the first phase of discovery. On March 25, 2025, the State of Delaware filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, due to a related administrative proceeding commenced by or on behalf of the State of Delaware Office of Unclaimed Property. As of December 31, 2025, the first phase of discovery was stayed pending a decision on the State of Delaware’s motion to dismiss. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.
On September 14, 2021, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”) filed an adversary proceeding against the Bank in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, titled Cachet Financial Services, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp Bank, et al., Defendants. The case was filed within the context of Cachet’s pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The Bank previously served as the Originating Depository Financial Institution (“ODFI”) for ACH transactions in connection with Cachet’s payroll services business. The matter arose from the Bank’s termination of its Payroll Processing ODFI Agreement with Cachet on October 23, 2019, for safety and soundness reasons. The initial complaint alleged eight causes of action: (i) breach of contract; (ii) negligence; (iii) intentional interference with contract; (iv) conversion; (v) express indemnity; (vi) implied indemnity; (vii) accounting; and (viii) objection to the Bank’s proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. On November 4, 2021, the Bank filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court, which was denied in February 2023. On August 3, 2022, Cachet served the Bank with a first amended complaint wherein Cachet, among other things, withdrew its implied indemnity claim against the Bank and added several defendants unaffiliated with the Bank and causes of action related to those parties. On September 28, 2022, the Bank filed a partial motion to dismiss, which was later denied. On October 31, 2024, Cachet filed its second amended complaint, which contained substantially similar claims against the Bank except it sought only “damages in amount to be proven at trial” whereas the first amended complaint sought “damages in amount to be proven but in no event less than $150 million.” On December 17, 2024, the Bank filed a partial motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 2, 2025. Specifically, Cachet’s negligence claim, conversion claim, and accounting claim were dismissed with prejudice. On July 10, 2025, the Bank answered the second amended complaint. On December 24, 2025, the Bank and Cachet entered into a confidential settlement agreement to resolve the adversary proceeding and a related interpleader action initiated by the Bank in 2019. The adversary proceeding and interpleader action were both subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
On March 27, 2023, the Bank received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) seeking documents and information related to the Bank’s escheatment practices in connection with certain accounts offered through one of the Bank’s program partners. The Bank responded to the CID and has not received further inquiries from the CFPB regarding the matter.
On November 21, 2023, TBBK Card Services, Inc. (“TBBK Card”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank, was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California (the “California Superior Court”), captioned People of the State of California, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, Plaintiff v. InComm Financial Services, Inc., TBBK Card Services, Inc., Sutton Bank, Pathward, N.A., and Does 1-10, Defendants. The complaint principally alleges that the defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and practices related to the packaging of “Vanilla” prepaid cards and the refund process for unauthorized transactions that occurred due to card draining practices. On December 14, 2023, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 26, 2024, the case was remanded to the California Superior Court. TBBK Card has vigorously defended against the claims. On May 6, 2024, TBBK Card filed a motion to quash service of the summons as to TBBK Card for lack of personal jurisdiction. TBBK Card’s motion to quash, and subsequent related appeals, were denied. On December 12, 2025, an amended complaint containing additional factual allegations was filed in the California Superior Court. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.
On November 25, 2024, the Bank commenced arbitration through the American Arbitration Association seeking approximately $1.808 million from Oxygen, Inc. (“Oxygen”) owed under a Private Label Account Program Agreement related to unpaid invoices and
indemnification obligations owed by Oxygen. On January 13, 2025, Oxygen answered the Bank’s arbitration demand, generally denying the allegations made by the Bank, and filed a Counterclaim against the Bank. The Counterclaim alleges (i) that the termination of the Private Label Account Program Agreement was pretextual, (ii) the Bank breached its notification obligations in terminating the Private Label Account Program Agreement, (iii) the Bank breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (iv) conversion of $1.2 million by the Bank. The ad damnum clause of the Counterclaim also seeks compensatory damages in an amount not less than $40 million. The Bank believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the Counterclaim. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.
On March 14, 2025, Nathan Linden filed a putative securities class action complaint captioned Nathan Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and purports to assert a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about the Company’s business, prospects, and operations, with a focus on the Company’s commercial real estate bridge loan (“REBL”) portfolio and related provision for credit losses. On September 29, 2025, the court appointed Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) as lead plaintiff; the case is now captioned Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. On December 22, 2025, SEPTA filed its amended class action complaint, which alleges that between January 26, 2024 and March 25, 2025, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about certain loans in the Company’s REBL portfolio and related provision for credit losses. The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the amended complaint. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.
In addition, we are a party to various routine legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Management believes that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operations.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 25, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Mar 3, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 29, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Mar 1, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Mar 1, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Mar 15, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Mar 16, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Mar 15, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Mar 16, 2018 | |
| 2016 | Mar 16, 2017 | |
| 2015 | Mar 15, 2016 | |
| 2014 | Sep 28, 2015 | |
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.