XML 29 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
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 May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, the “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, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 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. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court’s September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA’s opposition to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case were stayed pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA’s motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA’s second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. 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 independent registered public accounting firm 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. Pursuant to the Court’s March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its “omnibus” opposition to all of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA’s amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA’s motion for class certification would be scheduled after the Court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint. 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, as amended, or the Exchange Act. 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, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint were essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleged 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. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA’s motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016 Order stayed all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA’s motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The allegations of SEPTA’s proposed second amended complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC. As disclosed in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of the settlement of the SEC’s administrative proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1,000,000. The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC’s cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company believes are the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support dismissal of the second amended complaint. 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 January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order establishing the schedule for the litigation. The Case Management Order, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on November 3, 2017, and SEPTA’s motion for class certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes March 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by April 27, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for September 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled for the month of October 2018. Document discovery has begun in the case and is ongoing. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA’s second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127163 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyDisclosures
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration