13. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Contingencies On January 27, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a Bank customer alleging that FHB improperly charges an overdraft fee in circumstances where an account had sufficient funds to cover the transaction at the time the transaction is authorized but not at the time the transaction is presented for payment, and that this practice constitutes an unjust and deceptive trade practice and a breach of contract. The lawsuit further alleged that FHBs practice of assessing a one-time continuous negative balance overdraft fee on accounts remaining in a negative balance for a seven-day period constitutes a usurious interest charge and an unfair and deceptive trade practice. On July 23, 2018, the plaintiff amended the complaint to drop the usury claim related to FHBs practice of assessing a one-time continuous negative balance overdraft fee, but added additional claims alleging (1) that FHB prematurely deducts its own bank fees from accounts causing additional overdraft and insufficient funds fees; (2) that FHB assesses continuing overdraft notification fees on overdraft balances composed of only FHBs fees; and (3) that FHB improperly assesses paper statement fees when consumers elect to receive electronic statements. Plaintiff appears to assert claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive practices, conversion and unjust enrichment based on each of these theories. This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial institutions pertaining to available balance overdraft fee disclosures and continuing negative balance overdraft fees. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, its potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composit