CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
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. The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, “Orrstown Defendants”) are defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) on May 25, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants was expanded to include the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company’s March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended, alleges 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 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012, 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 asserts 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 seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On June 22, 2015, 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. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court’s ruling on June 22, 2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA’s proposed second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. Given that the Court has not yet granted SEPTA permission to file its proposed second amended complaint, and that defendants have not yet filed their opposition to SEPTA’s motion to amend or had the opportunity to challenge the legal sufficiency of the proposed second amended complaint by motion to dismiss, it is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint.

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.

The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, “Orrstown Defendants”) are defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”) on May 25, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants was expanded to include the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company’s March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended, alleges 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 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012, 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 asserts 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 seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.

On June 22, 2015, 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. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court’s ruling on June 22, 2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA’s proposed second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims.

Given that the Court has not yet granted SEPTA permission to file its proposed second amended complaint, and that defendants have not yet filed their opposition to SEPTA’s motion to amend or had the opportunity to challenge the legal sufficiency of the proposed second amended complaint by motion to dismiss, it is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint.