COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

10.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Off-Balance-Sheet Financing and Concentrations of Credit

The Company is a party to certain financial instruments with off-balance-sheet risk to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include the Company’s commitments to extend credit. Those instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit risk in excess of the amount recognized on the consolidated statements of condition. The contract amounts of those instruments reflect the extent of involvement the Company has in particular classes of financial instruments.

The Company’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual notional amounts of those instruments which are presented in the tables below (dollars in thousands). The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments.

	December 31, 2022
	Fixed Rate		Variable Rate		Total
Financial instruments whose contract amounts represent credit risk (including unused lines of credit and unadvanced loan funds):
Commitments to extend credit	$	28,942	$	242,690	$	271,632
Standby letters of credit		—		29,675		29,675
	$	28,942	$	272,365	$	301,307

	June 30, 2022
	Fixed Rate		Variable Rate		Total
Financial instruments whose contract amounts represent credit risk (including unused lines of credit and unadvanced loan funds):
Commitments to extend credit	$	59,970	$	219,978	$	279,948
Standby letters of credit		—		30,177		30,177
	$	59,970	$	250,155	$	310,125

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and require payment of a fee. Since certain commitments are expected to expire without being fully drawn, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Company evaluates each customer’s credit worthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral, if any, required by the Company for the extension of credit is based on management’s credit evaluation of the customer.

Commitments to extend credit may be written on a fixed rate basis thus exposing the Company to interest rate risk, given the possibility that market rates may change between commitment and actual extension of credit.

Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee payment on behalf of a customer or to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. The credit risk involved in issuing these instruments is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers. Since a portion of these instruments will expire unused, the total amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer is evaluated individually for creditworthiness under the same underwriting standards used for commitments to extend credit and on-balance-sheet instruments. Bank policies governing loan collateral apply to standby letters of credit at the time of credit extension.

Certain residential mortgage loans are written on an adjustable basis and include interest rate caps which limit annual and lifetime increases in interest rates. Generally, adjustable rate mortgages have an annual rate increase cap of 2%  to 5% and lifetime rate increase cap of 5% to 6% above the initial loan rate. These caps expose the Company to interest rate risk should market rates increase above these limits. At December 31, 2022, approximately $58.3 million of adjustable rate residential mortgage loans had interest rate caps. In addition, certain adjustable rate residential mortgage loans have a conversion option whereby the borrower may elect to convert the loan to a fixed rate during a designated time period. At December 31, 2022, approximately $670,000 of the adjustable rate mortgage loans had conversion options.

The Company periodically sells residential mortgage loans to FNMA. At December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the Bank had no loans held for sale. In addition, the Bank has no loan commitments with borrowers at December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022 with rate lock agreements which are intended to be held for sale, if closed. The Company generally determines whether or not a loan is held for sale at the time that loan commitments are entered into or at the time a convertible adjustable rate mortgage loan converts to a fixed interest rate. In order to reduce the interest rate risk associated with the portfolio of loans held for sale, as well as loan commitments with locked interest rates which are intended to be held for sale if closed, the Company enters into agreements to sell loans in the secondary market. At December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022, the Company had no commitments to sell loans to unrelated investors.

Concentrations of Credit

The Company primarily grants loans to customers located in the New York State counties of Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Saratoga, and Warren. Although the Company has a diversified loan portfolio, a substantial portion of its debtors’ ability to honor their contracts is dependent upon the real estate and construction-related sectors of the economy, and general economic conditions in the Company’s market area.

Legal Proceedings and Other Contingent Liabilities

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and the Bank are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations that could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be significant concerning matters arising from the conduct of their business, including the matters described below. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly where the claimants seek large or indeterminate damages, the Company generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company will establish an accrued liability when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. The Company’s estimates of potential losses will change over time and the actual losses may vary significantly, and there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. As a matter develops, management, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluate on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable; or where a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, whether it is possible to estimate a range of possible loss. Once the loss contingency is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company establishes an accrued liability and records a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Company continues to monitor the matters for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Excluding legal fees and expenses, no litigation-related expense was recognized for the three and six months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021. For those matters for which a loss is reasonably possible and estimable, whether in excess of an accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company’s estimated range of possible loss is $0 to $51.3 million in excess of the accrued liability, if any, as of December 31, 2022. These estimates are based upon currently available information and are subject to significant judgment, a variety of assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the accrued liability and estimated range of possible losses are unpredictable and may change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly from the current estimate and accrual. The estimated range of possible loss does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure.  

Information is provided below regarding the nature of the matters and associated claimed damages. The Company and the Bank are defending each of these matters vigorously, and the Company believes that it and the Bank have substantial defenses, including affirmative defenses, counterclaims and cross-claims to the various allegations that have been asserted. In light of the significant judgment, variety of assumptions and uncertainties involved in the matters described below, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, or matters related to or resulting from the matters described below, could have an adverse material impact on the Company’s business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences.

Mann Entities Related Fraudulent Activity

During the first fiscal quarter of 2020 (the quarter ended September 30, 2019), the Company became aware of potentially fraudulent activity associated with transactions by an established business customer of the Bank. The customer and various affiliated entities (collectively, the “Mann Entities”) had numerous accounts with the Bank. The transactions in question related both to deposit and lending activity with the Mann Entities.

For the fraudulent activity related to the Mann Entities, the Bank’s potential monetary exposure with respect to its deposit activity was approximately $18.5 million. In the first fiscal quarter of 2020, the Bank exercised its rights pursuant to state and federal law and the relevant Mann Entity general deposit account agreements to take actions to set off/recover approximately $16.0 million from general deposit corporate operating accounts held by the Mann Entities at the Bank to partially cover overdrafts/negative account balances in Mann Entity general deposit corporate operating accounts that primarily resulted from another bank returning/calling back $15.6 million in checks on August 30, 2019, that the Mann Entities had deposited into and then withdrawn from their accounts at the Bank the day before. In the first fiscal quarter of 2020, the Bank recognized a charge to non-interest expense in the amount of $2.5 million based on the net negative deposit balance of the various Mann Entities’ accounts after the setoffs/overdraft recoveries. Through the end of the second fiscal quarter of 2023, no additional charges to non-interest expense were recognized related to the deposit transactions with the Mann Entities.

With respect to the Bank’s lending activity with the Mann Entities, its potential exposure was approximately $15.8 million (which represents the Bank’s participation interest in the approximately $35.8 million commercial loan relationships for which the Bank is the originating lender). In the fourth fiscal quarter of 2019, the Bank recognized a provision for loan losses in the amount of $15.8 million, related to the charge-off of the entire principal balance owed to the Bank related to the Mann Entities’ commercial loan relationships. During the third fiscal quarter of 2020 and the first fiscal quarter of 2021, the Bank recognized partial recoveries in the amount of $1.7 million and $34,000, respectively, related to the charge-off of the Mann Entities’ commercial loan relationships, which were credited to the allowance for loan losses. Through the end of the second fiscal quarter of 2023, no additional charges to the provision for loan losses were recognized related to the loan transactions with the Mann Entities.

Several other parties and regulatory agencies are asserting claims against the Company and the Bank related to the series of transactions between the Company or the Bank, on the one hand, and the Mann Entities, on the other. The Company and the Bank continue to investigate these matters and it is possible that the Company and the Bank will be subject to similar legal, regulatory, governmental or other proceedings and additional liabilities. The ultimate timing and outcome of any such proceedings, involving the Company, or the Bank, cannot be predicted with any certainty. It also remains possible that other private parties or governmental bodies will pursue existing or additional claims against the Bank as a result of the Bank’s dealings with certain of the Mann Entities or as a result of the actions taken by the Company or the Bank. The Company’s and the Bank’s legal fees and expenses related to these actions are significant and are expected to continue being significant. In addition, costs associated with potentially prosecuting, litigating or settling any litigation, satisfying any adverse judgments, if any, or other proceedings, could be significant. These legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations, costs, settlements, judgments, sanctions or other expenses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business prospects, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences. The Company is pursuing all available sources of recovery and other means of mitigating the potential loss, and the Company and the Bank are vigorously defending all claims asserted against them arising out of or otherwise related to the fraudulent activity of the Mann Entities. During the six months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, the Bank recognized insurance recoveries in the amount of $1.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively, related to the partial reimbursement of defense costs incurred as a result of these matters, which were credited to noninterest expense – professional fees on the consolidated statements of operations.

Legal Proceedings

On October 31, 2019, Southwestern Payroll Services, Inc. (“Southwestern”) filed a complaint against the Company and the Bank (“Pioneer Parties”), Michael T. Mann, Valuewise Corporation, MyPayrollHR, LLC and Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, the “Mann Parties”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleged that the Pioneer Parties (i) wrongfully converted certain funds belonging to Southwestern, (ii) engaged in fraudulent and wrongful collection and retention of funds belonging to Southwestern, and (iii) committed gross negligence and that Southwestern is entitled to a constructive trust limiting how the Pioneer Parties distribute the funds in question, which are about $9.8 million. On November 26, 2019, the Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss Southwestern’s fraud claim, which also postponed the Pioneer Parties’ deadline to file an answer until 14 days after the court decided the motion to dismiss. On December 10, 2019, Southwestern filed a response to the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss and an amended complaint, which rendered the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss moot. The amended complaint named several additional corporate entities affiliated with the Mann Parties as co-defendants and asserted claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, actual and constructive fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, and an accounting. The amended complaint sought a monetary judgment of at least $9.8 million. Each party has filed numerous motions in the proceedings. On January 10, 2020, the Pioneer Parties moved again to dismiss Southwestern’s fraud claim in the amended complaint, which also postponed the Pioneer Parties’ deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint until 14 days after the court decided the motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2020, the court granted the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss Southwestern’s fraud claim. On April 30, 2020, Southwestern filed a motion for both leave to file a second amended complaint and for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of Southwestern’s fraud claim.  On May 1, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer to Southwestern’s amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties asserted numerous affirmative defenses, counterclaims against Southwestern, and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties, including for common law fraud under New York law and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”). The Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of Southwestern and certain of the Mann Parties resulted in damages of $15.6 million, plus pre-judgment interest. On July 7, 2020, the court granted Southwestern

leave to file a second amended complaint, which Southwestern filed on July 16, 2020. Southwestern’s second amended complaint asserted claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, actual and constructive fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, and an accounting – and sought a monetary judgment of at least $9.8 million. On July 30, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed an amended answer to Southwestern’s second amended complaint, which asserted the same affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and cross-claims as the Pioneer Parties’ prior answer to Southwestern’s amended complaint. On March 16, 2021, the Pioneer Parties filed a second amended answer to Southwestern’s second amended complaint, which asserted certain additional affirmative defenses but was otherwise identical to the Pioneer Parties’ amended answer. On October 8, 2021, Southwestern moved for leave to file a proposed third amended complaint, which would add Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. as a plaintiff and would assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud – and would seek a monetary judgment of at least $39 million. The Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in Southwestern’s proposed third amended complaint. On November 15, 2021, the Pioneer Parties filed papers in opposition to Southwestern’s motion for leave to file its proposed third amended complaint. On September 12, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum decision and order denying Southwestern’s motion. On September 26, 2022, Southwestern appealed that decision to the district judge presiding over the case.  On October 17, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed their response in opposition to the appeal. On October 26, 2022, the court granted Southwestern leave to file a reply in further support of the appeal, which was filed on November 7, 2022. The appeal is currently pending before the court. This matter is currently in discovery.

On December 10, 2019, National Payment Corp. (“NatPay”) filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in Southwestern’s lawsuit against the Pioneer Parties and the Mann Parties as described above. On January 10, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed opposition to NatPay’s motion to intervene. On August 4, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that NatPay be allowed to intervene, which was subsequently accepted by the court. NatPay filed its complaint in intervention on August 18, 2020. NatPay’s complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, and for an accounting against the Pioneer Parties. The prayer for relief in NatPay’s complaint seeks “compensatory damages in an amount of no less than $4 million” (the complaint also seeks punitive damages and interest in unspecified amounts). On September 8, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer and affirmative defenses to NatPay’s complaint. On March 16, 2021, the Pioneer Parties filed an amended answer to NatPay’s complaint, which asserted certain additional affirmative defenses but was otherwise identical to the Pioneer Parties’ answer. On October 8, 2021, NatPay moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint, which would assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud – and would seek a monetary judgment of at least $11.4 million. The Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in NatPay’s proposed amended complaint. On November 15, 2021, the Pioneer Parties filed papers in opposition to NatPay’s motion for leave to file its proposed amended complaint. On September 12, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting NatPay’s motion only to the limited extent of allowing NatPay to assert its proposed claim for unjust enrichment and otherwise denied the motion On September 26, 2022, NatPay appealed that decision to the district judge presiding over the case. On October 17, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed their response in opposition to the appeal. On October 26, 2022, the court granted NatPay leave to file a reply in further support of the appeal, which was filed on November 7, 2022. The appeal is currently pending before the court. This matter is currently in discovery.

On January 21, 2020, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”), a third-party automated clearing house service provider, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division (“Bankruptcy Court”). The Bank is not listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings. On January 20, 2022, Cachet filed an adversary proceeding complaint against the Pioneer Parties in the Bankruptcy Court.  The complaint alleges Michael T. Mann stole approximately $26.4 million from Cachet in August 2019 by manipulating Cachet’s “batch file specifications,” and that Mann subsequently caused approximately $8.5 million of those purportedly stolen funds to be deposited into accounts held by companies owned by Mann at Pioneer Bank. Cachet alleges Pioneer Bank refused Cachet’s request to return the approximately $8.5 million in purportedly stolen funds to Cachet.  Cachet’s complaint asserts causes of action against Pioneer for (1) avoidance and recovery of constructive fraudulent transfers, (2) conversion, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) money had and received, (5) violation of California Penal Code § 496(a), and (6) declaratory relief.  Cachet asserts “actual damages” of approximately $8.5 million, seeks three times its actual damages on its Section 496(a) claim (or approximately $25.6 million), and seeks costs of suit and attorneys’ fees. On February 28,

2022, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court and to transfer venue of the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (the “Withdrawal/Venue Motion”). On October 26, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered an order denying the Withdrawal/Venue Motion. On December 9, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. By stipulation among the parties, Cachet will file an amended complaint on or before February 16, 2023, rather than oppose the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss.

On February 4, 2020, Berkshire Hills Bancorp Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary Berkshire Bank (“Berkshire Bank”) filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County resulting from Berkshire Bank’s participation interest in the commercial loan relationship to the Mann Entities. The complaint alleges that the Bank (1) breached the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of June 27, 2018, (2) breached the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of August 12, 2019, (3) engaged in constructive fraud, (4) engaged in fraudulent inducement, (5) engaged in fraudulent concealment, and (6) negligently misrepresented certain material information. The complaint seeks to recover $15.6 million and additional damages. On August 14, 2020, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss five of Berkshire Bank’s claims. On December 18, 2020, Berkshire Bank filed papers in opposition to the Bank’s motion to dismiss. On February 19, 2021, the Bank filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. On July 1, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the Bank’s motion to dismiss. On August 4, 2021, the Bank filed its answer to Berkshire Bank’s remaining claims. On November 30, 2022, Berkshire Bank filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims to those asserted in the original complaint, except that it excised the claim that the court previously had dismissed and included claims for breach of the loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of June 29, 2017 and separate claims for fraudulent inducement with respect to each of the three loan participation agreements. On January 30, 2023, the Bank filed its answer to the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Berkshire Bank for breach of the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of August 12, 2019, as well as a claim for a declaratory judgment that Berkshire Bank ratified that agreement and may not contest its validity. This matter is currently in discovery.

On February 4, 2020, Chemung Financial Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, Chemung Canal Trust Company (“Chemung”), filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County resulting from Chemung’s participation interest in the commercial loan relationship to the Mann Entities. The complaint alleges that the Bank (1) breached the participation agreement between the Bank and Chemung dated as of August 12, 2019, (2) engaged in fraudulent activities, (3) engaged in constructive fraud, and (4) negligently misrepresented and omitted certain material information. The complaint seeks to recover $4.2 million and additional damages. On August 14, 2020, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss three of Chemung’s four claims. On December 18, 2020, Chemung filed papers in opposition to the Bank’s motion to dismiss. On February 19, 2021, the Bank filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. On July 1, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the Bank’s motion to dismiss. On August 4, 2021, the Bank filed its answer to Chemung’s remaining claims. This matter is currently in discovery.

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), with the authorization of a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, filed a civil complaint against the Company and the Bank (and Cloud Payroll, LLC) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully set off approximately $7.3 million from an account held by Cloud Payroll to apply towards debts allegedly owed to the Bank by Cloud Payroll and other affiliates of Michael Mann. The complaint alleges that the funds in question were comprised of payroll taxes and thus subject to a statutory trust under 26 U.S.C. § 7501 that prohibited the Bank from setting off those funds to apply towards debts owed to the Bank. The complaint seeks return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. The Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss the DOJ’s complaint against them on October 1, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the DOJ filed an amended complaint, which mooted the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss the DOJ’s original complaint. The amended complaint dropped one of the DOJ’s claims against the Pioneer Parties but continues to seek return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. The amended complaint relates to the same set of facts described above in “Mann Entities Related Fraudulent Activity”, and the alleged payroll taxes, plus interest, sought in this proceeding may be part of the recovery sought in the Southwestern and NatPay complaints described above. On November 4, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the DOJ’s amended complaint. By order dated November 19, 2021, discovery in this matter was stayed to permit the parties to discuss a potential resolution. On November 9, 2022, the parties submitted a joint status report advising the court that the matter had not been resolved and requesting that the court enter

a schedule for completion of discovery. The court thereafter entered an order on November 14, 2022 setting a schedule for completion of discovery. This matter is currently in discovery.

On August 31, 2020, AXH Air-Coolers, LLC (“AXH”) filed a complaint against the Pioneer Parties, and unnamed employees of the Pioneer Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Pioneer Parties (i) wrongfully converted certain tax funds belonging to AXH, (ii) were unjustly enriched by the wrongful taking of tax funds belonging to AXH, and (iii) were grossly negligent in allowing AXH’s tax funds to be misappropriated, offset, converted, or stolen. The prayer for relief in AXH’s complaint seeks $336,000, plus penalties and interest, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. The complaint relates to the same set of facts as the DOJ complaint as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. On November 5, 2020, the Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On November 22, 2021, the court dismissed AXH’s conversion, gross negligence, and accounting claims against the Pioneer Parties without prejudice. On December 12, 2021, AXH moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint, which would assert claims for conversion, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment against the Pioneer Parties and seeks the same damages as AXH’s original complaint.  The Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in AXH’s proposed amended complaint.  On January 14, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed papers in opposition to AXH’s motion for leave to file its proposed amended complaint, and the Pioneer Parties also cross-moved to dismiss AXH’s unjust enrichment claim or, in the alternative, for reconsideration of the court’s decision not to dismiss AXH’s unjust enrichment claim. On August 2, 2022, the court denied AXH’s motion for leave to file a proposed amended complaint asserting a claim for conversion but granted AXH leave to file an amended complaint containing claims for gross negligence and unjust enrichment. On August 12, 2022, AXH filed an amended complaint asserting gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and accounting claims against the Pioneer Parties.  On August 26, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer to the amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the claims and allegations in AXH’s amended complaint. This matter is currently in discovery.

On December 1, 2020, the Bank filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Teal, Becker & Chiaramonte, CPAs, P.C. (“TBC”), Mr. Pasquale M. Scisci and Mr. Vincent Commisso (collectively, with TBC, the “TBC Parties”), alleging professional malpractice by the TBC Parties in auditing the annual consolidated financial statements of Valuewise Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Valuewise Entities”) for the fiscal years 2010 to 2018.  The Bank asserts that the TBC Parties were aware that the primary, if not the exclusive, reason the Valuewise Entities engaged TBC to audit their financial statements was to provide the Bank with accurate financial information that the Bank would rely on in evaluating whether to provide loans to the Valuewise Entities.  The Bank contends that, among other matters, Mr. Michael Mann used the Valuewise Entities to defraud the Bank because of the professional malpractice of the TBC Parties and that if the TBC Parties had not committed professional malpractice by issuing unqualified “clean” opinions on the financial statements of the Valuewise Entities for fiscal years 2010 to 2018, the Bank would never have continued loaning money to the Valuewise Entities. The Banks seeks to recover damages of at least $34.1 million (plus interest) sustained by it as a result of the professional malpractice of the TBC Parties.  The TBC Parties filed their answer to the Bank’s complaint on February 12, 2021. This matter has been proceeding through discovery. On February 28, 2022, the TBC Parties filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Bank filed its opposition to that motion on May 23, 2022 and the TBC Parties filed their reply in further support of the motion on July 15, 2022. The motion was submitted to the court for decision on July 20, 2022, and on October 4, 2022, the Court entered a decision and order denying the motion in its entirety. This matter is currently in discovery.

On May 14, 2021, the Bank filed a verified petition for a hearing, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), to adjudicate the validity of the Bank’s interest in approximately $14.9 million in cash and securities forfeited by Michael Mann pursuant to a preliminary order of forfeiture in U.S. v. Mann filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The Bank’s petition alleges that it has a valid security interest in the forfeited property, and that the forfeited property should thus be turned over to the Bank.  On June 28, 2021, the government filed a motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition. On July 30, 2021, the Bank filed opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition. On August 13, 2021, the government filed a reply to the Bank’s opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition. On October 14, 2022, the magistrate judge assigned to the case entered a report and recommendation recommending the motion to dismiss the Bank’s petition be granted in part and denied in part. On October 28, 2022, the Bank filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The government filed its opposition to the Bank’s objection on November 21, 2022. The objection currently is pending before the court.

On August 15, 2022, Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. (“Granite Solutions”) filed a complaint against the Pioneer Parties, Michael T. Mann, Valuewise Corporation, Cloud Payroll LLC, Ross Personal Consultants, Inc., Always Live Holdings, LLC, Kaningo LLC, Hire Flux, LLC, Hire Flux Holdings, LLC, Viverant LLC, and Heutmaker Business Advisors, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint relates to the same set of facts as the DOJ and AXH complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. Like the proposed amended complaint in the Southwestern matter that sought to add Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. described above, the complaint asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in excess of $1 million, plus penalties and interest, treble damages, and punitive damages. On November 22, 2022, the court entered an order postponing the Pioneer Parties’ time to respond to the complaint until 30 days after the court’s entry of an order resolving the above-described appeals pending in the Southwestern/NatPay matter.

On September 2, 2022, two substantially similar putative class action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County.  The first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo’s Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. The second complaint was filed by O’Malley’s Oven LLC and Legat Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, “Cloud Payroll”). Similar to the first complaint described above, the two named plaintiffs in the second complaint seek to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. Both complaints assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a declaratory judgment. Both complaints also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of December 30, 2022. By agreement among the parties, the Pioneer Parties’ deadline to respond to the complaints currently is February 28, 2023.  

The Company and the Bank have received inquiries and requests for information from regulatory agencies relating to some of the entities and events that are the subjects of certain lawsuits described above. This has resulted in, or may in the future result in, regulatory agency investigations, litigation, subpoenas, enforcement actions, and related sanctions or costs. The Company and the Bank continue to cooperate with inquiries and respond to requests as appropriate.

The New York State Department of Financial Services (the “NYSDFS”) has made requests for production of documents, conducted interviews with Bank employees, and taken other investigatory actions with respect to the Bank’s practices associated with the Mann Parties. The Bank has complied with these requests, producing responsive, non-privileged documents to the NYSDFS. In Summer 2021, NYSDFS informed the Bank that if the parties could not reach a negotiated resolution related to NYSDFS’s findings arising from the Bank’s practices associated with the Mann Parties, NYSDFS would proceed to an administrative hearing on the issue. It is unknown whether the parties will be able to resolve the matter. A resolution could involve monetary penalties, injunctive relief, and other regulatory consequences. The monetary penalties could be up to $30.0 million, though, $15.0 million of these potential monetary penalties relate to and are not incremental to the damages sought by the plaintiffs in the Southwestern, NatPay, DOJ, Cachet, AXH, Granite Solutions, and putative class action proceedings described in this section.

The Company and the Bank continue to investigate these matters and it is possible that the Company and the Bank will be subject to similar legal, regulatory, governmental or other proceedings and additional liabilities. The ultimate timing and outcome of any such proceedings, involving the Company, or the Bank, cannot be predicted with any certainty. It also remains possible that other private parties or governmental bodies will pursue existing or additional claims against the Bank as a result of the Bank’s dealings with certain of the Mann Entities or as a result of the actions taken by the Pioneer Parties. The Company’s and the Bank’s legal fees and expenses related to these actions are significant and are expected to continue being significant. In addition, costs associated with potentially prosecuting, litigating or settling any litigation, satisfying any adverse judgments, if any, or other proceedings, could be significant. These legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations, costs, settlements, judgments, sanctions or other expenses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business prospects, financial condition, results of operations or

cash flows or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences.