General
We are a diversified financial services company headquartered in
Columbus, Indiana with $360 million of net revenues in 2005
and $6.6 billion in assets at December 31, 2005. We
focus primarily on the extension of credit to consumers and
small businesses as well as providing the ongoing servicing of
those customer accounts. Through our direct and indirect
subsidiaries, we currently operate four major lines of business:
commercial banking, commercial finance, home equity lending, and
mortgage banking. In January 2006, we announced that we are
considering strategic alternatives for our conventional first
mortgage banking business, including the potential sale of that
line of business.
We are a regulated bank holding company and we conduct our
consumer and commercial lending businesses through various
operating subsidiaries. Our banking subsidiary, Irwin Union Bank
and Trust Company, was organized in 1871. We formed the holding
company in 1972. Our direct and indirect major subsidiaries
include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, a commercial bank,
which together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings
bank, conduct our commercial banking activities; Irwin
Commercial Finance Corporation, a commercial finance subsidiary;
Irwin Home Equity Corporation, a consumer home equity lending
company; and Irwin Mortgage Corporation, a mortgage banking
company.
Our strategy is to position the Corporation as an interrelated
group of specialized financial services companies serving niche
markets of consumers and small businesses and optimizing the
productivity of our capital. At the parent level, we work
actively to add value to our lines of business by interacting
with the management teams, capitalizing on interrelationships,
providing centralized services and coordinating overall
organizational decisions. Additionally, as discussed in more
detail later in this report on Risk Management the
parent company also provides risk management oversight and
controls for our subsidiaries. Under this organizational
structure, the majority of our commercial finance, home equity
lending and mortgage banking lines of business operate as direct
and indirect subsidiaries of Irwin Union Bank and Trust. This
structure provides additional liquidity and results in
regulatory oversight of our business.
Our Internet address is
http://www.irwinfinancial.com.
We make available free of charge through our Internet website
our annual report on
Form
10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form
10-Q,
current
reports on
Form
8-K,
and
amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable
after we electronically file the material with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC). Our Internet website and the
information contained or incorporated in it are not intended to
be incorporated into this Annual Report on
Form
10-K.
Major Lines of Business
Our commercial banking line of business provides credit, cash
management and personal banking products primarily to small
businesses and business owners. We offer commercial banking
services through our banking subsidiaries, Irwin Union Bank and
Trust Company, an Indiana state-chartered commercial bank, and
Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank. The commercial
banking line of business offers a full line of consumer,
mortgage and commercial loans, as well as personal and
commercial checking accounts, savings and time deposit accounts,
personal and business loans, credit card services, money
transfer services, financial counseling, property, casualty,
life and health insurance agency services, trust services,
securities brokerage and safe deposit facilities. This line of
business operates through two charters, each headquartered in
Columbus, Indiana:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company
organized
in 1871, is a full service Indiana state-chartered commercial
bank with offices currently located throughout nine counties in
central and southern
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana, as well as in Kalamazoo, Grandville (near Grand
Rapids), Traverse City and Lansing, Michigan; Carson City and
Las Vegas, Nevada; and Salt Lake City, Utah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B.
is a full-service
federal savings bank that began operations in December 2000.
Currently we have offices located in Clayton, Missouri (near
St. Louis); Louisville, Kentucky; Milwaukee Wisconsin;
Phoenix, Arizona; and, Costa Mesa and Sacramento, California.
|
We discuss this line of business further in the Commercial
Banking section of Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation
(MD&A) of this report.
Established in 1999, our commercial finance line of business
originates small-ticket equipment leases throughout the U.S. and
Canada through an established network of vendors and third-party
originators and provides financing for franchisees of qualified
quick service and casual dining restaurant concepts in the
United States. The majority of our leases are full payout (no
residual), small-ticket assets secured by commercial equipment.
We finance a variety of commercial and office equipment types
while limiting the industry and geographic concentrations in our
lease and loan portfolios. Loans to franchisees often include
the financing of real estate as well as equipment.
In July 2000, the commercial finance line of business acquired
an ownership interest in approximately 78 percent of the
common stock of Onset Capital Corporation, now Irwin Commercial
Finance Canada Corporation (ICF-Canada), a Canadian small-ticket
equipment leasing company headquartered in Vancouver, British
Columbia. [In December 2001, Onset Capital established Onset
Alberta Ltd. as a subsidiary to facilitate its leasing
business.] In October 2001, we formed Irwin Franchise Capital
Corporation to conduct our franchise lending business. We
established Irwin Commercial Finance Corporation (formerly,
Irwin Capital Holdings) in April 2001 as a subsidiary of Irwin
Union Bank and Trust to serve as the parent company for both our
United States and Canadian commercial finance companies.
In December 2005, this line of business acquired the remaining
22 percent interest in the common stock of ICF-Canada, and
provided the former minority interest holders and the head of
the franchise lending business with stock options at the
line-of
-business level.
We discuss this line of business further in the Commercial
Finance section of the MD&A of this report.
We established this line of business when we formed Irwin Home
Equity Corporation as our subsidiary in 1994. It is
headquartered in San Ramon, California. Irwin Home Equity
became a subsidiary of Irwin Union Bank and Trust in 2001. In
conjunction with Irwin Union Bank and Trust, Irwin Home Equity
originates, purchases, securitizes and services home equity
loans and lines of credit and first mortgages nationwide. We
also periodically purchase servicing rights for home equity
loans. Our target customers are principally creditworthy, home
owning consumers who are active, unsecured credit card debt
users. We market our home equity products (with
loan-to
-value ratios up
to 125%) and first mortgage refinance programs (with
loan-to
-value ratios up
to 100%) through direct mail, the Internet, mortgage brokers and
correspondent lenders nationwide. Irwin Home Equitys core
competencies are credit risk assessment and specialized home
loan servicing.
We established Irwin Residual Holdings Corporation and Irwin
Residual Holdings Corporation II in 2001 to hold residual
interests that Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company transferred to
Irwin Financial Corporation. The residual interests were created
as a result of securitizations in our home equity line of
business.
We discuss this line of business further in the Home
Equity Lending section of the MD&A of this report.
3
We established our mortgage banking line of business when we
acquired our subsidiary, Irwin Mortgage Corporation, formerly
Inland Mortgage Corporation, in 1981. Irwin Mortgage became a
subsidiary of Irwin Union Bank and Trust in October, 2002. In
this line of business, Irwin Mortgage originates, purchases,
sells, and services primarily conventional and government
agency-backed residential mortgage loans throughout the United
States. Most of our first mortgage originations either are
insured or guaranteed by an agency of the federal government,
such as the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) or the Veterans
Administration (VA) or, in the case of conventional
mortgages, meet requirements for resale to the Federal National
Mortgage Association (FNMA), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (FHLMC) or the Federal Home Loan Bank
(FHLB). We originate mortgage loans through retail offices and
through direct marketing. We also purchase mortgage loans
through mortgage brokers and loan correspondents. Our
relationships with realtors, homebuilders, brokers and
correspondents help us identify potential borrowers. Irwin
Mortgage also engages in the mortgage reinsurance business
through its subsidiary, Irwin Reinsurance Corporation, a Vermont
corporation. We sell mortgage loans to institutional and private
investors but may retain servicing rights to the loans we
originate or purchase. Irwin Mortgage collects and accounts for
the monthly payments on each loan serviced and pays the real
estate taxes and insurance necessary to protect the integrity of
the mortgage lien, for which it receives a servicing fee.
At January 31, 2006, Irwin Mortgage operated 48 production
and satellite offices in 27 states. We discuss this line of
business further in the Mortgage Banking section of
the MD&A of this report.
In January 2006, we announced that we were considering strategic
alternatives for the conventional first mortgage business,
including the potential sale of the mortgage banking line of
business. We believe our mortgage banking line of business,
particularly the servicing function, has grown to a size where
it can be managed and grown more effectively within another
organization. We are actively searching for an alternative home
for the segment and its employees.
Customer Base
No single part of our business is dependent upon a single
customer or upon a very few customers and the loss of any one
customer would not have a materially adverse effect upon our
business. In those instances where we have significant single
customer relationships, we examine each relationship more
intensively than others and have developed contingency plans for
the loss of these significant customer relationships.
Competition
We compete nationally in the U.S. in each business, except
for commercial banking where our market focus is in selected
markets in the Midwest and Western states. In our commercial
finance line of business, our products are also offered
throughout Canada. We compete against commercial banks, savings
banks, credit unions and savings and loan associations, and with
a number of non-bank companies including mortgage banks and
brokers, other finance companies, and real estate investment
trusts.
Some of our competitors are not subject to the same degree of
regulation as that imposed on bank holding companies, state
banking organizations and federal saving banks. In addition,
many larger banking organizations, mortgage companies, mortgage
banks, insurance companies and securities firms have
significantly greater resources than we do. As a result, some of
our competitors have advantages over us in name recognition and
market penetration.
Financial Information About Geographic Areas
We conduct part of our commercial finance line of business in
Canadian markets. Net revenues for the last three years in this
line of business attributable to Canadian customers were
$11.5 million, $11.5 million and $7.9 million in
2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
4
Supervision and Regulation
We and our subsidiaries are each extensively regulated under
state and federal law. The following is a summary of certain
statutes and regulations that apply to us and to our
subsidiaries. These summaries are not complete, and you should
refer to the statutes and regulations for more information.
Also, these statutes and regulations may change in the future,
and we cannot predict what effect these changes, if made, will
have on our operations.
We are regulated at both the holding company and subsidiary
level and subject to both state and federal examination on
matters relating to safety and soundness, including
risk management, asset quality and capital adequacy, as well as
a broad range of other regulatory concerns including: insider
transactions, the adequacy of the reserve for loan losses,
intercompany transactions, regulatory reporting, adequacy of
systems of internal controls and limitations on permissible
activities. We also are subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, which imposes (i) requirements for audit committee
members, including independence and financial expertise
(ii) responsibilities regarding financial statements for
chief executive officers and chief financial officers;
(iii) standards for auditors and audits;
(iv) increased disclosure and reporting obligations for
public companies and their directors and executive officers; and
(v) civil and criminal penalties for violation of the
securities laws.
Our product and service offerings are subject to a number of
consumer protection laws and regulations. In many instances
these rules contain specific requirements regarding the content
and timing of disclosures and the manner in which we must
process and execute transactions. Some of these rules provide
consumers with rights and remedies, including the right to
initiate private litigation.
In addition, we are required to establish and administer a
variety of processes and programs to address other regulatory
requirements, including: community reinvestment provisions;
protection of customer information; identification of suspicious
activities, including possible money laundering; proper
identification of customers when performing transactions;
maintenance of information and site security; and other bank
compliance provisions. In a number of instances board and/or
management oversight is required as well as employee training on
specific regulations.
Regulatory agencies have a broad range of sanctions and
enforcement powers if an institution fails to meet regulatory
requirements, including civil money penalties, formal
agreements, and cease and desist orders.
|
|
|
|
|
Bank Holding Company Regulation
|
We are registered as a bank holding company with the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956, as amended and the related regulations,
referred to as the BHC Act. We are subject to regulation,
supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve, and as part
of this process, we must file reports and additional information
with the Federal Reserve.
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum Capital Requirements
|
The Federal Reserve has imposes risk-based capital requirements
on us as a bank holding company. Under these requirements,
capital is classified into two categories:
Tier 1 capital, or core capital, consists of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
common stockholders equity;
|
|
|
|
|
|
qualifying noncumulative perpetual preferred stock;
|
|
|
|
|
|
qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock (subject to some
limitations, and including our Trust Preferred securities,
of which $169 million qualified as Tier 1 capital as
of December 31, 2005); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
minority interests in the common equity accounts of consolidated
subsidiaries;
|
5
less
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
goodwill;
|
|
|
|
|
|
credit-enhancing interest-only strips (certain amounts
only); and
|
|
|
|
|
|
specified intangible assets (including $0.8 million of
disqualified Mortgage Servicing Assets (MSRs) as of
December 31, 2005).
|
Tier 2 capital, or supplementary capital, consists of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
allowance for loan and lease losses;
|
|
|
|
|
|
perpetual preferred stock and related surplus;
|
|
|
|
|
|
hybrid capital instruments (including Trust Preferred
securities, of which $64 million qualified as Tier 2
capital as of December 31, 2005);
|
|
|
|
|
|
unrealized holding gains on equity securities;
|
|
|
|
|
|
perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt securities;
|
|
|
|
|
|
term subordinated debt, including related surplus; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
intermediate-term preferred stock, including related securities.
|
The Federal Reserves capital adequacy guidelines require
bank holding companies to maintain a minimum ratio of qualifying
total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8 percent, at
least 4 percent of which must be in the form of Tier 1
capital. Risk-weighted assets include assets and credit
equivalent amounts of off-balance sheet items of bank holding
companies that are assigned to one of several risk categories,
based on the obligor or the nature of the collateral. The
Federal Reserve has established a minimum leverage
ratio of Tier 1 capital (less any intangible capital items)
to total assets (less any intangible assets), of 3 percent
for strong bank holding companies (those rated a composite
1 under the Federal Reserves rating system).
For all other bank holding companies, the minimum ratio of
Tier 1 capital to total assets is 4 percent. The
Federal Reserve continues to consider the Tier 1 leverage
ratio in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activities.
As of December 31, 2005, we had regulatory capital in
excess of all the Federal Reserves minimum levels and our
internal minimum target of 11.75% for risk-adjusted capital. Our
ratio of total capital to risk weighted assets at
December 31, 2005 was 13.1% and our Tier 1 leverage
ratio was 10.3%.
Under the BHC Act, we must obtain prior Federal Reserve approval
for certain activities, such as the acquisition of more than 5%
of the voting shares of any company, including a bank or bank
holding company. The BHC Act permits a bank holding company to
engage in activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to
be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling
banks as to be a proper incident to those banking activities,
such as operating a mortgage bank or a savings association,
conducting leasing and venture capital investment activities,
performing trust company functions, or acting as an investment
or financial advisor. See the section on Interstate
Banking and Branching below.
The Federal Reserve has policies on the payment of cash
dividends by bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve
believes that a bank holding company experiencing earnings
weaknesses should not pay cash dividends (1) exceeding its
net income or (2) which only could be funded in ways that
would weaken a bank holding companys financial health,
such as by borrowing. Also, the Federal Reserve possesses
enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their
non-bank subsidiaries to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound
practices or violations of applicable statutes and regulations.
Among these powers is the ability to prohibit or limit the
payment of dividends by banks (including dividends to bank
holding companies) and bank holding companies. See
Dividend Limitations below.
6
The Federal Reserve expects us to act as a source of financial
strength to our banking subsidiaries and to commit resources to
support them. In implementing this policy, the Federal Reserve
could require us to provide financial support when we otherwise
would not consider ourselves able to do so.
In addition to the restrictions on fundamental corporate actions
such as acquisitions and dividends imposed by the Federal
Reserve, Indiana law also places limitations on our authority
with respect to such activities.
|
|
|
|
|
Bank and Thrift Regulation
|
Indiana law subjects Irwin Union Bank and Trust and its
subsidiaries to supervision and examination by the Indiana
Department of Financial Institutions. Irwin Union Bank and Trust
is a member of the Federal Reserve System and, along with its
subsidiaries, is also subject to regulation, examination and
supervision by the Federal Reserve. Subsidiaries routinely
subject to examination include Irwin Mortgage, Irwin Home Equity
and Irwin Commercial Finance.
Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a direct subsidiary of the bank
holding company, is a federally chartered savings bank.
Accordingly, it is subject to regulation, examination and
supervision by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).
The deposits of Irwin Union Bank and Trust are insured by the
Bank Insurance Fund, and the deposits of Irwin Union Bank,
F.S.B. are insured by the Savings Association Insurance Fund
under the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(FDIA). As a result, Irwin Union Bank and Trust and Irwin Union
Bank, F.S.B. are subject to supervision by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Irwin Union Bank and Trust and Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. must
file reports with the Federal Reserve and the OTS, respectively,
and with the FDIC concerning its activities and financial
condition in addition to obtaining regulatory approvals before
establishing branches or entering into certain transactions such
as mergers with, or acquisitions of, other financial
institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage Banking and Residential Lending Regulation
|
The residential lending activities of Irwin Union Bank and
Trust, the mortgage banking activities of its subsidiary, Irwin
Mortgage, and the home equity lending business of Irwin Union
Bank and Trusts subsidiary Irwin Home Equity, are
regulated by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has broad
authority to oversee the banking activities of Irwin Union Bank
and Trust and its subsidiaries as the primary federal regulator
of the bank, pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act, and the
nonbanking subsidiaries of Irwin Financial Corporation, pursuant
to the BHC Act. Federal Reserve regulations and policies, such
as restrictions on affiliate transactions and real estate
lending policies relating to asset quality and prudent
underwriting of loans, apply to our residential lending
activities. The Indiana Department of Financial Institutions has
comparable supervisory and examination authority over Irwin
Mortgage, Irwin Home Equity and Irwin Commercial Finance due to
their status as subsidiaries of Irwin Union Bank and Trust.
The Federal Reserve imposes requirements on state member banks
such as Irwin Union Bank and Trust regarding the maintenance of
adequate capital substantially identical to the capital
regulations applicable to bank holding companies described in
the section on
Bank Holding Company
Regulation Minimum Capital Requirements.
While retaining the authority to set capital ratios for
individual banks, these regulations prescribe minimum total
risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and leverage
(Tier 1 capital divided by average total assets) ratios.
The Federal Reserve requires banks to hold capital commensurate
with the level and nature of all of the risks, including the
volume and severity of problem loans, to which they are exposed.
As with the regulations applicable to bank holding companies,
the Federal Reserve requires all state member banks to meet a
minimum ratio of qualifying total capital to weighted risk
assets of 8 percent, of which at least 4 percent
should be in the form of Tier 1 capital.
7
The minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets, or the
leverage ratio, for strong banking institutions (rated composite
1 under the uniform rating system of banks) is
3 percent. For all other institutions, the minimum ratio of
Tier 1 capital to total assets is 4 percent. Banking
institutions with supervisory, financial, operational, or
managerial weaknesses are expected to maintain capital ratios
well above the minimum levels, as are institutions with high or
inordinate levels of risk. Banks experiencing or anticipating
significant growth are also expected to maintain capital,
including tangible capital positions, well above the minimum
levels. A majority of such institutions generally have operated
at capital levels ranging from 1 to 2 percent above the
stated minimums. Higher capital ratios could be required if
warranted by the particular circumstances to risk profiles of
individual banks. The standards set forth above specify minimum
supervisory ratios based primarily on broad credit risk
considerations. The risk-based ratio does not take explicit
account of the quality of individual asset portfolios or the
range of other types of risks to which banks may be exposed,
such as interest rate, liquidity, market or operational risks.
For this reason, banks are generally expected to operate with
capital positions above the minimum ratios.
At December 31, 2005, Irwin Union Bank and Trust had a
total risk-based capital ratio of 12.3%, a Tier 1 capital
ratio of 10.8%, and a leverage ratio of 10.4%.
The risk-based capital guidelines also provide that an
institutions exposure to declines in the economic value of
the institutions capital due to changes in interest rates
must be considered as a factor by the agencies in evaluating the
capital adequacy of a bank or savings association. This
assessment of interest rate risk management is incorporated into
the banks overall risk management rating and used to
determine managements effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance of Deposit Accounts
|
As FDIC-insured institutions, Irwin Union Bank and Trust and
Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. are required to pay deposit insurance
premiums based on the risk they pose to the Bank Insurance Fund
(BIF) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF),
respectively. Currently, the amount of FDIC assessments paid by
an insured depository institution ranges from zero to
$0.27 per $100 of insured deposits, based on the
institutions relative risk to the deposit insurance funds,
as measured by the institutions regulatory capital
position and other supervisory factors. The FDIC also has the
authority to raise or lower assessment rates on insured deposits
to achieve the statutorily required reserve ratios in insurance
funds and to impose special additional assessments.
In addition to deposit insurance fund assessments, the FDIC
assesses both BIF and SAIF insured deposits a special assessment
to fund the repayment of debt obligations of the Financing
Corporation (FICO). FICO is a government-sponsored entity that
was formed to borrow the money necessary to carry out the
closing and ultimate disposition of failed thrift institutions
by the Resolution Trust Corporation. At December 31, 2005,
the annualized rate established by the FDIC for the FICO
assessment on both BIF and SAIF deposits was 1.34 basis
points per $100 of insured deposits.
On February 1, 2006, Congress enacted the FDIC Reform Act
of 2005. This legislation, among other changes, will merge the
BIF and SAIF into one fund, increase insurance coverage for
retirement accounts to $250,000 and index the insurance levels
for inflation.
Under Indiana law, certain dividends require notice to, or
approval by, the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions,
and Irwin Union Bank and Trust may not pay dividends in an
amount greater than its net profits then available, after
deducting losses and bad debts.
In addition, as a state member bank, Irwin Union Bank and Trust
may not, without the approval of the Federal Reserve, declare a
dividend if the total of all dividends declared in a calendar
year, including the proposed dividend, exceeds the total of its
net income for that year, combined with its retained net income
of the preceding two years, less any required transfers to the
surplus account. During the past two years, Irwin Union Bank and
Trust dividends have exceeded net income during the same period
primarily due to
clean-up
8
calls related to residuals held by our home equity
segment. When the bond pools on which we have residual interests
decline in size to less than 10 percent of their original
balances, we have the right, but not the obligation to purchase
the remaining loans from the bond pools. We typically do this to
lower the administrative costs to both us and bond investors of
continuing to service relatively small pools of loans and bonds.
Our residual interests, and the right to call the bonds, are
housed in a non-bank subsidiary. However, when we call
(clean-up) the loans from pools, we wish to fund
them permanently at Irwin Union Bank and Trust due to its lower
cost funding. Once the loans are repurchased by the non-bank
subsidiary, they are infused to Irwin Union Bank as a capital
contribution. To restore liquidity to the non-bank subsidiary,
we dividend a similar dollar amount from Irwin Union Bank and
Trust to the parent. This process has used dividend capacity
beyond the Banks earnings in 2004 and 2005. As a result,
the bank cannot declare a dividend to us without regulatory
approval until such time that current year earnings plus
earnings from the last two years exceeds dividends during the
same periods. We expect to be able to declare dividends from the
Irwin Union Bank and Trust to the holding company without prior
approval by mid-year 2006.
In most cases, savings and loan associations, such as Irwin
Union Bank, F.S.B., are required either to apply to or to
provide notice to the OTS regarding the payment of dividends.
The savings association must seek approval if it does not
qualify for expedited treatment under OTS regulations, or if the
total amount of all capital distributions for the applicable
calendar year exceeds net income for that year to date plus
retained net income for the preceding two years, or the savings
association would not be adequately capitalized following the
dividend, or the proposed dividend would violate a prohibition
in any statute, regulation or agreement with the OTS. In other
circumstances, a simple notice is sufficient.
Our ability and the ability of Irwin Union Bank and Trust and
Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. to pay dividends also may be affected
by the various capital requirements and the prompt corrective
action standards described below under Other Safety and
Soundness Regulations.. Our rights and the rights of our
shareholders and our creditors to participate in any
distribution of the assets or earnings of our subsidiaries also
is subject to the prior claims of creditors of our subsidiaries
including the depositors of a bank subsidiary.
|
|
|
|
|
Interstate Banking and Branching
|
Under federal law, banks are permitted, if they are adequately
or well-capitalized, in compliance with Community Reinvestment
Act requirements and in compliance with state law requirements
(such as
age-of
-bank
limits and deposit caps), to merge with one another across state
lines and to create a main bank with branches in separate
states. After establishing branches in a state through an
interstate merger transaction, a bank may establish and acquire
additional branches at any location in the state where any bank
involved in the interstate merger could have established or
acquired branches under applicable federal and state law.
As a federally chartered savings bank, Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B.
has greater flexibility in pursuing interstate branching than an
Indiana state bank. Subject to certain exceptions, a federal
savings association generally may establish or operate a branch
in any state outside the state of its home office if the
association meets certain statutory requirements.
Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), banking and thrift
institutions have a continuing and affirmative obligation,
consistent with their safe and sound operation, to help meet the
credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods. Institutions are rated on their
performance in meeting the needs of their communities.
Performance is tested in three areas: (a) lending, which
evaluates the institutions record of making loans in its
assessment areas; (b) investment, which evaluates the
institutions record of investing in community development
projects, affordable housing and programs benefiting low or
moderate income individuals and business; and (c) service,
which evaluates the institutions delivery of services
through its branches, ATMs and other activities. The CRA
requires each federal banking agency, in connection with its
examination of a financial institution, to assess and assign one
of four ratings to the institutions record of meeting the
credit needs of its community and to take this record into
account in evaluating certain applications by the institution,
including applications for charters, branches and
9
other deposit facilities, relocations, mergers, consolidations,
acquisitions of assets or assumptions of liabilities, and
savings and loan holding company acquisitions. Both Irwin Union
Bank and Trust and Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. received a
satisfactory rating on their most recent CRA
performance evaluations.
|
|
|
|
|
Other Safety and Soundness Regulations
|
Under current law, the federal banking agencies possess broad
powers to take prompt corrective action in
connection with depository institutions and their bank holding
companies that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The law
establishes five capital categories for insured depository
institutions for this purpose: well-capitalized,
adequately capitalized,
undercapitalized, significantly
undercapitalized and critically
undercapitalized. To be considered
well-capitalized under these standards, an
institution must maintain a total risk-based capital ratio of
10% or greater; a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or
greater; a leverage capital ratio of 5% or greater; and not be
subject to any order or written directive to meet and maintain a
specific capital level for any capital measure. An
adequately capitalized institution must have a
Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 4%, a total capital ratio
of at least 8% and a leverage ratio of at least 4%. Federal law
also requires the bank regulatory agencies to implement systems
for prompt corrective action for institutions that
fail to meet minimum capital requirements within the five
capital categories, with progressively more severe restrictions
on operations, management and capital distributions according to
the category in which an institution is placed. Failure to meet
capital requirements can also cause an institution to be
directed to raise additional capital. Federal law also mandates
that the agencies adopt safety and soundness standards relating
generally to operations and management, asset quality and
executive compensation, and authorizes administrative action
against an institution that fails to meet such standards.
Brokered deposits include funds obtained, directly or
indirectly, by or through a deposit broker for deposit into one
or more deposit accounts. Well-capitalized institutions are not
subject to limitations on brokered deposits, while an adequately
capitalized institution is able to accept, renew or rollover
brokered deposits only with a waiver from the FDIC and subject
to certain restrictions on the yield paid on such deposits.
Undercapitalized institutions are not permitted to accept
brokered deposits. Irwin Union Bank and Trust and Irwin Union
Bank, F.S.B. are permitted to accept brokered deposits.
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-Money Laundering Laws
|
Irwin Union Bank and Trust and Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. are
subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and its implementing regulations
and other anti-money laundering laws and regulations, including
the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Among other things, these laws and
regulations require Irwin Union Bank and Trust and Irwin Union
Bank F.S.B to take steps to prevent the use of each institution
for facilitating the flow of illegal or illicit money, to report
large currency transactions and to file suspicious activity
reports. Each bank also is required to develop and implement a
comprehensive anti-money laundering compliance program. Banks
also must have in place appropriate know your
customer policies and procedures. Violations of these
requirements can result in substantial civil and criminal
sanctions. In addition, provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act
require the federal financial institution regulatory agencies to
consider the effectiveness of a financial institutions
anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and
bank holding company acquisitions.
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance with Consumer Protection Laws
|
Our subsidiaries also are subject to federal and state consumer
protection statutes and regulations including the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Truth in Lending Act,
the Truth in Savings Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Among other things,
these acts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
require lenders to disclose credit terms in meaningful and
consistent ways;
|
|
|
|
|
|
prohibit discrimination against an applicant in any consumer or
business credit transaction;
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
prohibit discrimination in housing-related lending activities;
|
|
|
|
|
|
require certain lenders to collect and report applicant and
borrower data regarding loans for home purchases or improvement
projects;
|
|
|
|
|
|
require lenders to provide borrowers with information regarding
the nature and cost of real estate settlements;
|
|
|
|
|
|
prohibit certain lending practices and limit escrow account
amounts with respect to real estate transactions; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
prescribe possible penalties for violations of the requirements
of consumer protection statutes and regulations.
|
In addition, banking subsidiaries are subject to a number of
federal and state regulations that offer consumer protections to
depositors, including account terms and disclosures, funds
availability and electronic funds transfers.
As part of the home equity line of business in conjunction with
its subsidiary, Irwin Home Equity, Irwin Union Bank and Trust
originates home equity loans through its branch in Carson City,
Nevada. Irwin Union Bank and Trust uses interest rates and loan
terms in its home equity loans and lines of credit that are
authorized by Nevada law, but might not be authorized by the
laws of the states in which the borrowers are located. As a
FDIC-insured, state member bank, Irwin Union Bank and Trust is
authorized by Section 27 of the FDIA to charge interest at
rates allowed by the laws of the state where the bank is located
regardless of any inconsistent state law, and to apply these
rates to loans to borrowers in other states. The FDIC has opined
that a state bank with branches outside of the state in which it
is chartered may also be located in a state in which it
maintains an interstate branch. Irwin Union Bank and Trust
relies on Section 27 of the FDIA and the FDIC opinion in
conducting its home equity lending business described above.
From time to time, state regulators have questioned the
application of Section 27 of the FDIA to credit practices
affecting citizens of their states. Any change in
Section 27 of the FDIA or in the FDICs interpretation
of this provision, or any successful challenge as to the
permissibility of these activities, could require that we change
the terms of some of our loans or the manner in which we conduct
our home equity line of business.
Employees and Labor Relations
At January 31, 2006 we and our subsidiaries had a total of
2,445 employees, including full-time and part-time employees. We
continue a commitment of equal employment opportunity for all
job applicants and staff members, and management regards its
relations with its employees as satisfactory.
Executive Officers
Our executive officers are elected annually by the Board of
Directors and serve until their successors are qualified and
elected. In addition to our Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Mr. William I. Miller (49), who also serves as a
director, our executive officers are listed below.
Gregory F. Ehlinger
(43) has been our Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer since August of 1999. He
has been one of our officers since August 1992.
Jose M. Gonzalez
(47) has been our Vice
President-Director Internal Audit since October 1995.
Robert H. Griffith
(47) has been President and Chief
Executive Officer of Irwin Mortgage since January 2001. He has
been an officer of Irwin Mortgage since 1993.
Theresa L. Hall
(53) has been our Vice
President-Human Resources since 1988 and one of our officers
since 1980.
Bradley J. Kime
(45) has been President of Irwin
Union Banks commercial line of business since May 2003 and
President of Irwin Union Bank F.S.B. since December 2000. He has
been an officer of Irwin Union Bank and Trust since 1987 and one
of our officers since 1986.
11
Joseph R. LaLeggia
(44) has been President of Irwin
Commercial Finance Corporation since July of 2002. He has been
the President and Chief Executive Officer of Irwin Commercial
Finance Canada Corporation (formerly, Onset Capital Corporation)
since April 1998.
Jody A. Littrell
(38) has been our Vice President
and Controller since March 2000.
Jocelyn Martin-Leano
(44) has served as Interim
President of Irwin Home Equity since December 30, 2005. She
has served in several executive officer positions since joining
Irwin Home Equity in 1995.
David S. Meyercord
(38) has been Senior Vice
President of Irwin Ventures since 2000 and President of Irwin
Shared Services since June 2005. He has held several management
and executive positions at the parent company since 1997.
Steven R. Schultz
(41) re-joined us as Vice
President-General Counsel in January of 2006. He served as
General Counsel to the Governor of Indiana during 2005. He
joined us as Vice President-Legal in January 2002. From August
1999 through December 2001 he was an attorney in the London
office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson,
focusing primarily on mergers and acquisitions, capital markets
financings and private equity transactions
Matthew F. Souza
(48) has been our Senior Vice
President-Ethics since August 1999 and our Secretary since 1986.
He has been one of our officers since 1986.
Brett R. Vanderkolk
(40) has been our Vice
President-Treasurer since September 2000.
Thomas D. Washburn
(58) has been our Executive Vice
President since August 1999 and one of our officers since 1976.
From 1981 to August 1999 he served as our Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer.
An investment in our securities involves a number of risks.
We urge you to read all of the information contained in this
Report on
Form
10-K.
In
addition, we urge you to consider carefully the following
factors in evaluating an investment in our common shares.
|
|
|
|
|
Risks Relating to General Economic Conditions and Interest
Rates.
|
We may be adversely affected by a general deterioration in
economic conditions.
The risks associated with our business become more acute in
periods of a slowing economy or slow growth. Economic declines
may be accompanied by a decrease in demand for consumer and
commercial credit and declining real estate and other asset
values. Delinquencies, foreclosures and losses generally
increase during economic slowdowns or periods of slow growth. We
expect that our servicing costs and credit losses will increase
during periods of economic slowdown or slow growth.
In our consumer mortgage lines of business, a material decline
in real estate values may reduce the ability of borrowers to use
home equity to support borrowings and could increase the
loan-to
-value ratios of
loans we have previously made, thereby weakening collateral
coverage and increasing the possibility of a loss in the event
of a default. A decline in real estate values could also
materially reduce the amount of home equity loans we produce.
We may be adversely affected by interest rate changes.
We and our subsidiaries are subject to interest rate risk.
Changes in interest rates will affect the value of loans,
deposits and other interest-sensitive assets and liabilities on
our balance sheet. Our income may be at risk because changes in
interest rates also affect our net interest margin and the value
of assets and derivatives that we sell from time to time or that
are subject to either
mark-to
-market
accounting or
lower-of
-cost-or-market
accounting, such as loans held for sale, mortgage servicing
rights and derivatives instruments.
Reductions in interest rates expose us to write-downs in the
carrying value of the mortgage servicing and other servicing
assets we hold on our balance sheet. These assets are recorded
at the lower of their cost or
12
market value and a valuation allowance is recorded for any
impairment. Decreasing interest rates often lead to increased
prepayments in the underlying loans which requires that we write
down the carrying value of these servicing assets. The change in
value of these assets, if improperly hedged or mismanaged, could
adversely affect our operating results in the period in which
the impairment occurs.
Our commercial lending and commercial finance lines of business
mainly depend on earnings derived from net interest income. Net
interest income is the difference between interest earned on
loans and investments and the interest expense paid on other
borrowings, including deposits at our banks and other funding
liabilities we have. Our interest income and interest expense
are affected by general economic conditions and by the policies
of regulatory authorities, including the monetary policies of
the Federal Reserve that cause our funding costs and yields on
new or variable rate assets to change.
Although we take measures intended to manage the risks of
operating in changing interest rate environments, we cannot
eliminate interest rate sensitivity. Our goal is to ensure that
interest rate sensitivity does not exceed prudent levels as
determined by our Board of Directors in certain policies. Our
risk management techniques include modeling interest rate
scenarios, using financial hedging instruments, match-funding
certain loan assets, selling selected servicing rights and
maintaining a strong loan production operation to offset
interest rate risk. There are costs and risks associated with
our risk management techniques, and these could be substantial.
Finally, to reduce the effect interest rates have on our
businesses, we periodically invest in derivatives and other
interest-sensitive instruments. While our intent in purchasing
these instruments is to reduce our overall interest rate
sensitivity, the performance of these instruments can, at times,
cause volatility in our results either due to factors such as
basis risk between the derivatives and the hedged item, timing
of accounting recognition differences or other such factors.
|
|
|
|
|
Risks Relating to an Investment in Us.
|
We have recently had financial performance below that of
peers and have lost money in two of the past four quarters.
In the first and second quarters of 2005, we lost money and in
the fourth quarter of 2005 earned substantially less as a
percentage of assets than peers. While we believe we are
addressing the factors that caused this underperformance, there
can be no assurance if and when our results will surpass that of
our peers.
We may need additional capital in the future and adequate
financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at
all.
We anticipate that we will be able to access capital markets as
necessary to fund the growth of our business. However, we have
recently been growing at a rate that exceeds our ability to
generate internally capital sufficient to maintain our desired
capital levels. We intend to seek additional capital in the
future to fund growth of our operations and to maintain our
regulatory capital above well-capitalized standards. We may not
be able to obtain additional debt or equity financing, or, if
available, it may not be in amounts and on terms acceptable to
us. If we are unable to obtain the funding we need, we may be
unable to develop our products and services, take advantage of
future opportunities or respond to competitive pressures, which
could have a material adverse effect on us.
Our operations may be adversely affected if we are unable to
secure adequate funding; our use of wholesale funding sources
and securitizations exposes us to potential liquidity risk.
Due to balance sheet growth, in recent quarters we have
increased our reliance on wholesale funding, such as short-term
credit facilities, Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings and
brokered deposits. Because wholesale funding sources are
affected by general capital market conditions, the availability
of funding from wholesale lenders may be dependent on the
confidence these investors have in commercial and consumer
finance businesses. The continued availability to us of these
funding sources is uncertain, and we could be adversely impacted
if our business segments become disfavored by wholesale lenders.
In addition, brokered deposits may be difficult for us to retain
or replace at attractive rates as they mature. Our financial
flexibility
13
could be severely constrained if we are unable to renew our
wholesale funding or if adequate financing is not available in
the future at acceptable rates of interest. We may not have
sufficient liquidity to continue to fund new loans or lease
originations and we may need to liquidate loans or other assets
unexpectedly in order to repay obligations as they mature.
We regularly sell the majority of our first and second mortgage
loan originations into the secondary market through the use of
securitizations. At times, some of our financial assets, such as
nontraditional, high
loan-to
-value home
equity loans or residuals, may not be readily marketable, and we
may not be able to sell assets at favorable prices when
necessary. This could adversely affect our liquidity and funding
for future originations and purchases of loans.
We have announced our intention to seek strategic alternatives,
including the possible sale of the operation of our conventional
mortgage segment. This segment has been a net provider of
liquidity to the Corporation and our divestiture of it would
cause us to seek alternative funding sources to contribute to
our other lines of business.
We have credit risk inherent in our asset portfolios.
In our businesses, some borrowers may not repay loans that we
make to them. As all financial institutions do, we maintain an
allowance for loan and lease losses to absorb the level of
losses that we think is probable in our portfolios. However, our
allowance for loan and lease losses may not be sufficient to
cover the loan and lease losses that we actually may incur.
While we maintain a reserve at a level management believes is
adequate, our charge-offs could exceed these reserves. If we
experience defaults by borrowers in any of our businesses to a
greater extent than anticipated, our earnings could be
negatively impacted.
Certain of our consumer mortgage products are not sold by
many financial institutions.
Product design is important to us to differentiate us in
consumer mortgage lending. We have developed our lines of
business by identifying niches that we believe offer us a
competitive opportunity. For this reason, the performance of our
financial assets may be less predictable than those of other
lenders. We may not have the same history of delinquency and
loss experience to utilize in pricing and structuring some of
our products as do lenders offering more seasoned asset types,
and it may be more difficult to sell or securitize certain, more
innovative, products.
The generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP) for
our activities have evolved in a meaningful manner in the past
decade and we expect continued change.
We may also be impacted by changes in evolving generally
accepted accounting principles, unanticipated financial
reporting requirements and regulatory uncertainties since
accounting and regulatory treatment may not be well established
for some of our strategies. We have had a recent history of
unintentional, but material misstatement in our financial
statement filings in connection with a novel asset and were
required to file amended periodic filings for 2004 and the first
and second quarters of 2005. While we believe we have
appropriate safeguards in place to prevent a recurrence of these
misstatements, we cannot guarantee that a subsequent error will
not be made.
We rely heavily on our management team and key personnel, and
the unexpected loss of key managers and personnel may affect our
operations adversely.
Each line of our lines of business has a management team that
operates its niche as a separate business unit. Our overall
financial performance depends heavily on the results of these
different specialized financial services businesses. Our success
to date has been influenced strongly by our ability to attract
and to retain senior management that is experienced in banking
and financial services. Our ability to retain executive officers
and the current management teams of each of our lines of
business will continue to be important to implement our
strategies successfully.
Ownership of our common stock is concentrated in persons
affiliated with us.
Our Chairman and CEO, William I. Miller, currently has voting
control, including common shares beneficially held through
employee stock options that are exercisable within 60 days
of the record date, of
14
approximately 38% of our common shares. Together with
Mr. Miller, directors and executive officers of Irwin
beneficially own, including the right to acquire common stock
through employee stock options that are exercisable within
60 days of the record date, more than 40% of our common
shares. These persons likely have the ability to substantially
control the outcome of all shareholder votes and to direct our
affairs and business. This voting power would enable them to
cause actions to be taken that may prove to be inconsistent with
the interests of non-affiliated shareholders.
Our future success depends on our ability to compete
effectively in highly competitive financial services
industry.
The financial services industry, including commercial banking,
mortgage banking, home equity lending and equipment leasing, is
highly competitive, and we and our operating subsidiaries
encounter strong competition for deposits, loans and other
financial services in all of our market areas in each of our
lines of business. Our principal competitors include other
commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations,
mutual funds, money market funds, finance companies, trust
companies, insurers, leasing companies, credit unions, mortgage
companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), private
issuers of debt obligations, venture capital firms, and
suppliers of other investment alternatives, such as securities
firms. Many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the
same degree of regulation as we and our subsidiaries are and
have advantages over us in providing certain services. Many of
our competitors are significantly larger than we are and have
greater access to capital and other resources. Also, our ability
to compete effectively in our lines of business is dependent on
our ability to adapt successfully to technological changes
within the banking and financial services industry generally.
Our shareholder rights plan, provisions in our restated
articles of incorporation, our by-laws, and Indiana law may
delay or prevent an acquisition of us by a third party.
Our Board of Directors has implemented a shareholder rights
plan. The rights have certain anti-takeover effects. The overall
effects of the plan may be to render more difficult or to
discourage a merger, tender offer or proxy contest, the
assumption of control by a holder of a larger block of our
shares and the removal of incumbent directors and key management
even if such removal would be beneficial to shareholders
generally. If triggered, the rights will cause substantial
dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire us
without approval of our Board of Directors, and under certain
circumstances, the rights beneficially owned by the person or
group may become void. The plan also may have the effect of
limiting shareholder participation in certain transactions such
as mergers or tender offers whether or not such transactions are
favored by incumbent directors and key management. In addition,
our executive officers may be more likely to retain their
positions with us as a result of the plan, even if their removal
would be beneficial to shareholders generally.
Our restated articles of incorporation and our by-laws as well
as Indiana law contain provisions that make it more difficult
for a third party to acquire us without the consent of our Board
of Directors. These provisions also could discourage proxy
contests and may make it more difficult for you and other
shareholders to elect your own representatives as directors and
take other corporate actions.
Our by-laws do not permit cumulative voting of shareholders in
the election of directors, allowing the holders of a majority of
our outstanding shares to control the election of all our
directors. We have a staggered board which means that only
one-third of our board can be replaced by shareholders at any
annual meeting. Directors may not be removed by shareholders. As
a result of his share ownership position, our Chairman, William
I. Miller, will likely be able to exercise effective control
over the outcome of any shareholder vote. Our by-laws also
provide that only our Board of Directors, and not our
shareholders, may adopt, alter, amend and repeal our by-laws.
Indiana law provides several limitations that may discourage
potential acquirers from purchasing our common shares. In
particular, Indiana law prohibits business combinations with a
person who acquires 10% or more of our common shares during the
five-year period after the acquisition of 10% by that person or
entity, unless the acquirer receives prior approval for the
acquisition of the shares or business combination from our Board
of Directors.
15
These and other provisions of Indiana law and our governing
documents could provide the Board of Directors with the
negotiating leverage to achieve a more favorable outcome for our
shareholders in the event of an offer for the Company. On the
other hand, these same anti-takeover provisions could have the
effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a
change in control that might be in the best interest of our
shareholders.
We are the defendant in class actions and other lawsuits that
could subject us to material liability.
Our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits that
allege we violated state and federal laws in the course of
making loans and leases. Among the allegations are that we
charged impermissible and excessive rates and fees, participated
in fraudulent financing, and are responsible for injuries to
renters whose landlord had a mortgage with our subsidiary. Most
of these cases either seek or have attained class action status,
which generally involves a large number of plaintiffs and could
result in potentially increased amounts of loss. We have not
established reserves in the majority of these lawsuits due to
either lack of probability of loss or inability to accurately
estimate potential loss. If decided against us, the lawsuits
have the potential to affect us materially. The
Legal
Proceedings
section in Part I, Item 3 of this
Report describes in more detail the lawsuits in which we are
named as defendants that potentially could result in material
liability.
Our business may be affected adversely by the highly
regulated environment in which we operate.
We and our subsidiaries are subject to extensive federal and
state regulation and supervision. Our failure to comply with
these requirements can lead to, among other remedies,
administrative enforcement actions, termination or suspension of
our licenses, rights of rescission for borrowers, and class
action lawsuits. Recently enacted, proposed and future
legislation and regulations have had, will continue to have or
may have significant impact on the financial services industry.
Regulatory or legislative changes could make regulatory
compliance more difficult or expensive for us, causing us to
change or limit some of our consumer loan products or the way we
operate our different lines of business. Future changes could
affect the profitability of some or all of our lines of business.
The consumer lending business in which we engage is highly
regulated and has been the subject of increasing legislative and
regulatory initiatives. Federal, state and local government
agencies and/or legislators have adopted and continue to
consider legislation to restrict lenders ability to charge
rates and fees in connection with residential mortgage loans. In
general, these proposals involve lowering the existing federal
Homeownership and Equity Protection Act thresholds for defining
a high-cost loan, and establishing enhanced
protections and remedies for borrowers who receive these loans.
Frequently referred to as predatory lending
legislation, many of these laws and rules also restrict commonly
accepted lending activities, including some of our activities,
such as offering balloon loan features and prepayment charges.
These laws, regulations and initiatives have, and could further,
limit our ability to impose various fees and charge what we
believe are risk-based interest rates on various types of
consumer loans, and may impose additional regulatory
restrictions on our business in certain states.
Because we originate home equity loans from our banking branch
in Nevada, federal law permits us to charge interest rates and
certain fees associated with the interest rate permitted by
Nevada law regardless of where the borrowers may reside.
Nonetheless, from time to time regulators and customers from
other states have questioned our ability to charge certain fees,
such as prepayment penalties, to residents of their states. At
least one of the lawsuits pending against us challenges our
ability to charge these fees to borrowers in another state. A
change in federal or state law or regulation, or an adverse
interpretation or decision by a court in litigation on this
issue, may affect the rates and fees we charge on home equity
loans made to borrowers outside Nevada.
16
Our regulators have policies that can restrict the payment of
cash dividends from our banking subsidiaries to us and from us
to our shareholders. We have paid dividends on our common stock
in the past but there is no certainty that we will continue to
do so.
Like other registrants, we are subject to the requirements of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Failure to have in place
adequate programs and procedures could cause us to have gaps in
our internal control environment, putting the Corporation and
its shareholders at risk of loss.
These and other potential changes in government regulation or
policies could increase our costs of doing business and could
adversely affect our operations and the manner in which we
conduct our business.
Our main office is located at 500 Washington Street, Columbus,
Indiana, in space leased from Irwin Union Bank and Trust. The
location and general character of our other materially important
physical properties as of January 31, 2006 are as follows:
Irwin Union Bank and Trust
The main office is located in four buildings at 435, 500, 520
and 526 Washington Street, Columbus, Indiana. Irwin Union Realty
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Irwin Union Bank and
Trust, owns these buildings in fee and leases them to Irwin
Union Bank and Trust. One or the other of Irwin Union Bank and
Trust or Irwin Union Realty owns the branch properties in fee at
seven locations in Bartholomew County, Indiana. These properties
have no major encumbrances. Irwin Union Bank and Trust or Irwin
Union Realty owns or leases nine other branch offices in Central
and Southern Indiana, four offices in Michigan, two offices in
Nevada, and one in Utah.
Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B.
The home office is located at 500 Washington Street, Columbus
Indiana. Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B. has six branch offices located
in Arizona, California (2), Kentucky Missouri, and Wisconsin.
All offices are leased.
Irwin Commercial Finance Corporation
The main office of Irwin Commercial Finance Corporation is
located at 500 Washington Street, Columbus, Indiana. The office
of our domestic commercial finance operation, Irwin Commercial
Finance Corporation, Equipment Finance, formerly Irwin Business
Finance Corporation is located at 330 120th Avenue NE,
Bellevue, Washington and is leased. Our Canadian commercial
finance subsidiary, Irwin Commercial Finance Canada Corporation
(formerly Onset Capital Corporation), leases its main office at
Suite 300 Park Place, 666 Burrard Street, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, and leases its three processing
centers in Calgary, Alberta; Toronto, Ontario; and Montreal,
Quebec. The main offices of our franchise lending subsidiary,
Irwin Franchise Capital Corporation, are located at 10 Paragon
Drive, Montvale, New Jersey and 2700 Westchester Avenue,
Purchase, New York and are both leased. In addition, Irwin
Franchise Capital owns the building that houses its telesales
center at 2715 13th Street, Columbus, Nebraska.
Irwin Home Equity
The main office is located at 12677 Alcosta Boulevard,
Suite 500, San Ramon, California. Irwin Home Equity
occupies one other office at this location in San Ramon,
California and an office located at 2550 West Tyvola Rd.,
Suite 290, Charlotte, North Carolina. All three offices are
leased.
Irwin Mortgage
The main office, where administrative and servicing activities
are centered, is located at 10500 Kincaid Drive, Fishers,
Indiana, and is leased. Loan production and satellite offices,
which are leased, are operated from approximately 48 locations
in 27 states.
17
|
|
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal Proceedings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage Corporation
|
Our indirect subsidiary, Irwin Mortgage Corporation (formerly
Inland Mortgage Corporation), is a defendant in a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, filed in April 1996, alleging that Irwin
Mortgage violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA) relating to Irwin Mortgages payment of
broker fees to mortgage brokers. In June 2001, the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the district
courts certification of a plaintiff class. In November
2001, the parties filed supplemental briefs analyzing the impact
of an October 18, 2001 policy statement issued by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that
explicitly disagreed with the judicial interpretation of RESPA
by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in its ruling
upholding class certification in this case.
Subsequently, the 11th Circuit subsequently decided three
other RESPA cases. In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit
concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in
certifying a class action under RESPA. Further, in that
decision, the 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in
effect, overruling its previous decision upholding class
certification in our case. In March 2003, Irwin Mortgage filed a
motion to decertify the class. Irwin Mortgage and the plaintiffs
also filed motions for summary judgment.
On February 7, 2006, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted Irwin
Mortgages motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment, thereby dismissing this case. The plaintiffs then
filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit. If the plaintiffs were to prevail on their
appeal and also prevail at a subsequent trial on the merits,
Irwin Mortgage could be liable for RESPA damages that could be
material to our financial position. However, Irwin Mortgage
believes the 11th Circuits RESPA ruling in a similar
case argued before it would support a decision in this case
affirming the trial court in favor of Irwin Mortgage. We
therefore have not established any reserves for this case.
|
|
|
|
|
Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corporation
|
In April 2003, our indirect subsidiary, Irwin Mortgage
Corporation, was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed in the Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court. The
complaint alleges that Irwin Mortgage charged a document
preparation fee in violation of Indiana law for services
performed by clerical personnel in completing legal documents
related to mortgage loans. Irwin Mortgage filed an answer on
June 11, 2003 and a motion for summary judgment on
October 27, 2003. On June 18, 2004, the court
certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana borrowers who
were allegedly charged the fee by Irwin Mortgage any time after
April 17, 1997. This date was later clarified by
stipulation of the parties to be April 14, 1997. In
November 2004, the court heard arguments on Irwin
Mortgages motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs
motion seeking to send out class notice. On January 23,
2006, the court ruled that dissemination of class notice can
proceed before the court addresses the motion for summary
judgment. We are unable at this time to form a reasonable
estimate of the amount of potential loss, if any, that Irwin
Mortgage could suffer. We have not established any reserves for
this case.
|
|
|
|
|
Cohens v. Inland Mortgage Corporation
|
In October 2003, our indirect subsidiary, Irwin Mortgage
Corporation (formerly Inland Mortgage Corporation), was named as
a defendant, along with others, in an action filed in the
Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. The plaintiffs,
a mother and two children, allege they were injured from lead
contamination while living in premises allegedly owned by the
defendants. The suit seeks approximately $41 million in
damages and alleges negligence, breach of implied warranty of
habitability and fitness for intended use, loss of services and
the cost of medical treatment. On June 15, 2005, Irwin
Mortgage filed an answer and cross-claims seeking dismissal of
the complaint. We are unable at this time to form a reasonable
estimate of the amount of potential loss, if any, that Irwin
Mortgage could suffer. We have not established any reserves for
this case.
18
|
|
|
|
|
Litigation in Connection with Loans Purchased from Community
Bank of Northern Virginia
|
Our subsidiary, Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, is a
defendant in several actions in connection with loans Irwin
Union Bank purchased from Community Bank of Northern Virginia
(Community).
Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company
was
filed on July 30, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. As
amended on August 30, 2004, the
Hobson
complaint,
seeks certification of both a plaintiffs and a
defendants class, the plaintiffs class to consist of
all persons who obtained loans from Community and whose loans
were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.
Hobson
alleges that
defendants violated the
Truth-in
-Lending Act
(TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA),
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On
October 12, 2004, Irwin filed a motion to dismiss the
Hobson
claims as untimely filed and substantively
defective.
Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia
was
originally filed in July 2002 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Irwin Union Bank
and Trust was added as a defendant in December 2004. The
Kossler
complaint seeks certification of a
plaintiffs class and seeks to void the mortgage loans as
illegal contracts. Plaintiffs also seek recovery against Irwin
for alleged RESPA violations and for conversion. On
September 9, 2005, the
Kossler
plaintiffs filed a
Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On October 21,
2005, Irwin filed a renewed motion seeking to dismiss the
Kossler
action.
The plaintiffs in
Hobson
and
Kossler
claim that
Community was allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement
involving the use of its charter by certain third parties who
charged high fees that were not representative of the services
rendered and not properly disclosed as to the amount or
recipient of the fees. The loans in question are allegedly high
cost/high interest loans under Section 32 of HOEPA.
Plaintiffs also allege illegal kickbacks and fee splitting. In
Hobson
, the plaintiffs allege that Irwin was aware of
Communitys alleged arrangement when Irwin purchased the
loans and that Irwin participated in a RICO enterprise and
conspiracy related to the loans. Because Irwin bought the loans
from Community, the
Hobson
plaintiffs are alleging that
Irwin has assignee liability under HOEPA.
If the
Hobson
and
Kossler
plaintiffs are
successful in establishing a class and prevailing at trial,
possible RESPA remedies could include treble damages for each
service for which there was an unearned fee, kickback or
overvalued service. Other possible damages in
Hobson
could include TILA remedies, such as rescission, actual
damages, statutory damages not to exceed the lesser of $500,000
or 1% of the net worth of the creditor, and attorneys fees
and costs; possible HOEPA remedies could include the refunding
of all closing costs, finance charges and fees paid by the
borrower; RICO remedies could include treble plaintiffs
actually proved damages. In addition, the
Hobson
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified punitive damages. Under
TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and RICO, statutory remedies include recovery
of attorneys fees and costs. Other possible damages in
Kossler
could include the refunding of all origination
fees paid by the plaintiffs.
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company is also a defendant, along
with Community, in two individual actions
(Chatfield v.
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, et al.
and
Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company,
et al.)
filed on June 9, 2004 in the Circuit Court
of Frederick County, Maryland, involving mortgage loans Irwin
Union Bank purchased from Community. On July 16, 2004, both
of these lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland. The complaints allege that
the plaintiffs did not receive disclosures required under HOEPA
and TILA. The lawsuits also allege violations of Maryland law
because the plaintiffs were allegedly charged or contracted for
a prepayment penalty fee. Irwin believes the plaintiffs received
the required disclosures and that Community, a
Virginia-chartered bank, was permitted to charge prepayment fees
to Maryland borrowers. Under the loan purchase agreements
between Irwin and Community, Irwin has the right to demand
repurchase of the mortgage loans and to seek indemnification
from Community for the claims in these lawsuits. On
September 17, 2004, Irwin made a demand for indemnification
and a defense to
Hobson, Chatfield
and
Ransom.
Community denied this request as premature.
In response to a motion by Irwin, the Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
Hobson, Chatfield
and
Ransom
with
Kossler
in the Western
District of Pennsylvania for all pretrial proceedings.
19
We have established a reserve for the Community litigation based
upon SFAS 5 guidance and the advice of legal counsel.
|
|
|
|
|
Litigation Related to NorVergence, Inc.
|
Irwin Commercial Finance Corporation, Equipment Finance
(Equipment Finance) (formerly known as Irwin
Business Finance), our indirect subsidiary, is involved on a
national basis in equipment leasing finance and maintains a
diverse portfolio of leases, including leases in the
telecommunications field. A portion of Equipment Finances
telecommunications portfolio involves leases of equipment
acquired from NorVergence, Inc., a New Jersey-based
telecommunications company. After assigning leases to Equipment
Finance and other lenders, NorVergence became a debtor in a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is currently pending in the
United States Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey. The sudden failure
of NorVergence left many of its customers without
telecommunications service. These customers became very angry
when commitments made to them by NorVergence went unfulfilled.
Complaints by former NorVergence customers have led to
investigations by the attorneys general of several states.
Equipment Finance has been named as a defendant in several
lawsuits connected with NorVergence.
Exquisite Caterers, LLC
et al. v. Popular Leasing et al.
is a lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, and
was amended to include Equipment Finance and others on
September 1, 2004. The
Exquisite Caterers
plaintiffs
seek certification of a class of persons who leased network
computer equipment from NorVergence, whose leases were assigned
to defendants. The complaint alleges that NorVergence
misrepresented the services and equipment provided, that the
lessees were defrauded and the lease agreements should not be
enforced. The action alleges violations of, among other things,
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; the New Jersey
Truth-in
-Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act; the FTC Holder Rule; the FTC
Act; and breach of contract and implied warranties. The
plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
and injunctive relief, including rescission of the leases and
cessation of collections. On June 16, 2005, the judge in
the
Exquisite Caterers
lawsuit denied plaintiffs
alternative motions for certification of either a nationwide
class or a class of New Jersey residents only. Plaintiffs then
filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying
certification of a class limited to New Jersey residents.
At a hearing on September 14, 2005, the judge granted
plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and certified a
class limited to New Jersey residents. Equipment Finance has
fewer than ten lessees who may qualify as members of the New
Jersey class certified in the
Exquisite Caterers
lawsuit.
Equipment Finance was also named as a defendant, along with
other lenders, in
Delanco Board of Education
et al. v. IFC Credit Corporation
, a lawsuit filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Chancery
Division, in October 2004 in connection with leases assigned to
the lenders by NorVergence. (IFC Credit Corporation is not
affiliated with Irwin Financial Corporation or Equipment
Finance.) The suit involved more than one thousand plaintiffs
and alleged fraud, misrepresentation and violations of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud law based on alleged conduct
similar to that in
Exquisite Caterers,
with the addition
of a count under the New Jersey RICO statute. Plaintiffs also
alleged unjust enrichment and conversion and sought rescission
of the leases plus punitive and other damages. After failing in
an attempt to obtain a temporary injunction, the plaintiffs
agreed to withdraw the complaint filed in the Superior Court and
commenced actions in the NorVergence bankruptcy proceeding,
seeking similar relief. Equipment Finance filed a motion to
dismiss it from the adversary proceeding and is awaiting the
courts ruling on the motion.
Equipment Finance was also named as a defendant, along with
other lenders, in
Sterling Asset & Equity Corp.
et al. v. Preferred Capital, Inc. et al.
, an
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in October 2004, which was
voluntarily dismissed in January 2005. The plaintiffs then filed
a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida on
January 14, 2005 seeking class certification on behalf of
Florida persons or entities who leased equipment from
NorVergence and whose agreement was assigned to one of the named
lenders. The plaintiffs allege that NorVergence engaged in
false, misleading and deceptive sales and billing practices. The
complaint alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the FTC Holder Rule, and breach of contract
and warranties. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and/or declaratory
relief prohibiting enforcement of the leases, rescission, return
of payments, interest,
20
attorneys fees and costs. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
this action in June of 2005 after Equipment Finance had filed
its motion to dismiss the complaint.
In connection with investigations by various state attorneys
general, Equipment Finance and other lenders were asked to
produce information about their relationships with NorVergence
and to refrain from enforcing NorVergence leases. Equipment
Finance is pursuing discussions with most of the states in which
it has customers who executed agreements with NorVergence and
has discontinued collection activities while discussions are in
progress. Equipment Finance has now executed agreements with:
the Attorney General of California, providing for recovery of
15% of outstanding balances on California leases as of
July 15, 2004, and with the Attorney General of Florida,
entitling Equipment Finance to lease payments through
January 31, 2005. In November of 2005, Equipment Finance
extended the benefits of the California settlement to
NorVergence customers residing in Texas. Equipment Finance
recently executed an agreement with a multi-state group of
attorneys general. The multi-state agreement requires that
NorVergence lessees be offered the opportunity to pay Equipment
Finance all amounts due on their leases through July 15,
2004, plus 15% of the then-outstanding balance in full
satisfaction of their lease obligations.
On October 21, 2004, the Attorney General of Florida filed
a complaint against twelve lenders, including Equipment Finance,
in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon
County, Florida
(State of Florida v. Commerce Commercial
Leasing, LLC et al.)
This suit was stayed by agreement
of the parties while they discussed resolution of the concerns
expressed by the Florida Attorney General. The complaint alleged
that the agreements assigned by NorVergence to the lenders were
unconscionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act. The suit also sought to prohibit collection
activities by the lenders and asked for repayment of revenues,
rescission of the agreements, restitution, recovery of actual
damages, and civil money penalties. On April 29, 2005,
acting on defendants motion to dismiss, the judge in the
Commerce Commercial Leasing action dismissed the action in its
entirety. The Attorney General of Florida appealed the order of
dismissal. Equipment Finance was dismissed from the appeal as a
result of its settlement with the State of Florida.
The individual lawsuit filed against Equipment Finance in
September 2004 in the Superior Court of Massachusetts was put on
hold pending discussions with the multi-state group of attorneys
general, of which the Attorney General of Massachusetts is a
participant. The plaintiff in this action has been offered the
opportunity to participate in the multi-state settlement
program, and Equipment Finance is awaiting a response to its
offer.
Agreements with state attorneys general and recent favorable
court rulings have significantly reduced the risk that damages
might be awarded against Equipment Finance in
NorVergence-related class actions and other lawsuits. We have
established loss reserves for customer reimbursements required
under agreements already closed with various states
attorneys general. We have not established reserves in
connection with NorVergence-related litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corporation and Irwin
Union Bank and Trust Company
|
On August 12, 2005, our indirect subsidiary, Irwin Home
Equity Corporation, and our direct subsidiary, Irwin Union Bank
and Trust Company (collectively, Irwin), were named
as defendants in litigation seeking class action status in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The plaintiffs allege Irwin violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by using or obtaining
plaintiffs consumer reports for credit transactions not
initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did not receive firm
offers of credit. The plaintiffs also allege that Irwin failed
to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures as required by the
FCRA. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
statutory damages of $1,000 per each separate violation and
punitive damages for alleged willful violations of the FCRA.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on October 4, 2005.
On October 18, 2005, Irwin moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim. Irwin believes it has
strong defenses to plaintiffs claims; however, we are
unable at this time to form a reasonable estimate of the amount
of potential loss, if any, that Irwin could suffer and have not
established any reserves for this case.
21
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company and Irwin
Home Equity Corporation
|
On January 5, 2006, our direct subsidiary, Irwin Union Bank
and Trust Company, and our indirect subsidiary, Irwin Home
Equity Corporation, (collectively, Irwin) were named
as defendants in litigation in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland. The plaintiffs allege that Irwin charged or
caused plaintiffs to pay certain fees, costs and other charges
that were excessive or illegal under Maryland law in connection
with loans made to plaintiffs by Irwin. The plaintiffs seek
certification of a class consisting of Maryland residents who
received mortgage loans from Irwin secured by real property in
the State of Maryland and who claim injury due to Irwins
lending practices. The plaintiffs are seeking damages under the
Maryland Mortgage Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act for, among other things, relief from further
interest payments on their loans, reimbursement of interest,
charges, fees and costs already paid, including prepayment
penalties paid by the class, and damages of three times the
amount of all allegedly excessive or illegal charges paid, plus
attorneys fees, expenses and costs. In the alternative,
the plaintiffs seek arbitration as provided for in their
mortgage notes. On February 17, 2006, Irwin filed a notice
of removal, and removed the case from state to federal court. At
this stage of the litigation, we are unable to form a reasonable
estimate of the amount of potential loss, if any, that Irwin
could suffer and have not established any reserves for this case.
We and our subsidiaries are from time to time engaged in various
matters of litigation, including the matters described above,
other assertions of improper or fraudulent loan practices or
lending violations, and other matters, and we have a number of
unresolved claims pending. In addition, as part of the ordinary
course of business, we and our subsidiaries are parties to
litigation involving claims to the ownership of funds in
particular accounts, the collection of delinquent accounts,
challenges to security interests in collateral, and foreclosure
interests, that is incidental to our regular business
activities. While the ultimate liability with respect to these
other litigation matters and claims cannot be determined at this
time, we believe that damages, if any, and other amounts
relating to pending matters are not likely to be material to our
consolidated financial position or results of operations, except
as described above. Reserves are established for these various
matters of litigation, when appropriate under SFAS 5, based
in part upon the advice of legal counsel.
|
|
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
During the fourth quarter of 2005, no matters were submitted to
a vote of our security holders, through the solicitation of
proxies or otherwise.
22