5.	Recent Accounting Pronouncements (Applicable to the Company)

In January 2010, Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2010-06, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements”, to amend the disclosure requirements related to recurring and nonrecurring fair value measurements. The guidance requires new disclosures regarding transfers of assets and liabilities between Level 1 (quoted prices in active market for identical assets or liabilities) and Level 2 (significant other observable inputs) of the fair value measurement hierarchy, including the reasons and the timing of the transfers. Additionally, the guidance requires a rollforward of activities, separately reporting purchases, sales, issuance, and settlements, for assets and liabilities measured using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3 fair value measurements). The guidance is effective for annual reporting periods that begin after December 15, 2009, and for interim periods within those annual reporting periods except for the changes to the disclosure of rollforward activities for any Level 3 fair value measurements, which are effective for annual reporting periods that begin after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those annual reporting periods. Other than requiring additional disclosures, adoption of this new guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, “Transfer and Servicing (Topic 860): Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements”. This ASU removes from the assessment of effective control the criterion relating to the transferor’s ability to repurchase or redeem financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee. The guidance is effective for first interim and annual reporting periods ending after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, “A Creditor’s Determination of whether a Restructuring Is a Troubled Debt Restructuring”. The new guidance clarifies when a loan modification or restructuring is a TDR in order to address current diversity in practice and lead to more consistent application of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a TDR, a creditor must separately conclude that the restructuring constitutes a concession and the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. Additionally, the guidance clarifies that a creditor is precluded from using the effective interest rate test in the debtor’s guidance on restructuring of payables when evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a TDR. The guidance was effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after June 15, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS”. This ASU clarifies how to measure fair value, but does not require additional fair value measurement and is not intended to affect current valuation practices outside of financial reporting. However, additional information and disclosure will be required for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2, the sensitivity of a fair value measurement categorized as Level 3, and the categorization of items that are not measured at fair value by level of the fair value hierarchy. The guidance is effective during interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income”. This ASU will, “require that all nonowner changes in stockholders’ equity be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In the two-statement approach, the first statement should present total net income and its components followed consecutively by a second statement that should present total other comprehensive income, the components of other comprehensive income, and the total of comprehensive income.” This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption of this new guidance did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, “Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05”, which defers the effective date of a requirement in ASU 2011-05 related to reclassifications of items out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The deferral in the effective date was made to allow the FASB time to redilberate whether to require presentation on the face of the financial statements the effects of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the components of net income and other comprehensive income for all periods presented.