CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

CONTINGENCIES

CONTINGENCIES

The nature of the Company’s business generates a certain amount of litigation involving matters arising out of the ordinary course of business. Except as described below, in the opinion of management, there are no legal proceedings that might have a material effect on the results of operations, liquidity, or the financial position of the Company at this time.

On March 5, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder of Hamilton, filed, on behalf of himself and all of Hamilton’s stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates (the “Purported Class”), a derivative and putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin et. al., naming each Hamilton director, Orrstown, and Hamilton as defendants (the “Action”). The Action alleged, among other things, that Hamilton’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in connection with the merger, and that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted certain material information regarding the merger. Orrstown was alleged to have aided and abetted the Hamilton directors’ alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Action sought, among other remedies, to enjoin the merger or, in the event the merger was completed, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages; unspecified damages; and costs of the lawsuit, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. A settlement was reached on the Action in March 2020 which resulted in a payment by the Company of $135 thousand in mootness fees to the defendants in April 2020.

On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and officers (collectively, the “Orrstown Defendants”). The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank’s credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company’s March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

thereunder, and sought class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include the Company’s former independent registered public accounting firm, Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC (“SEK”), and the underwriters of the Company’s March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extended the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA’s amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA’s motion for leave to amend again and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss SEPTA’s second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged expert reports in opposition to and in support of class certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA has not yet filed a motion for class certification.

On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board of Governors of the FRB and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA’s motion to compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA’s motion to compel the production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.

On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss SEPTA’s second amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint also seeks to reassert the Exchange Act claims against those defendants that the Court dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016.

On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered an Order partially granting Orrstown’s motion for protective order, ruling that all deposition discovery in the case was stayed pending a decision on SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Party and non-party document discovery in the case has largely been completed.

On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the previously dismissed Securities Act claim against the Orrstown Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24, 2020. SEPTA’s opposition was filed on July 8, 2020, and Orrstown’s reply brief was filed on August 12, 2020.

Additionally, on February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and the underwriter defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) asking the District Court to certify its February 14, 2020 Order granting leave to file the third amended complaint for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court granted those motions on July 17, 2020, and defendants filed their Petition for Permission to Appeal with the Third Circuit on July 27, 2020. The Third Circuit granted permission to appeal the Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on August 13, 2020. Defendants filed their joint Opening Brief in the Third Circuit on November 2, 2020, asking the Court to reverse the district court’s Order. SEPTA filed its responsive brief on December 2, 2020 and defendants filed their reply brief on December 23, 2020. Oral argument was held on February 10, 2021. On September 2, 2021, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's February 14, 2020 Order granting SEPTA leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendants' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint are still pending in the District Court.

The Company believes that SEPTA’s allegations and claims against the defendants are without merit, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously against those claims. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.