XML 12 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
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 settle ment 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 executive officers (collectively, the “Orrstown Defendants”). The complaint 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 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 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. 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 Orrstown Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA’s opposition to the Orrstown Defendants’ 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 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 extends 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 U.S. 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 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, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. 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. 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 stays 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 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 $1.0 million. 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 believed were 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 and, on August 15, 2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018, and SEPTA’s motion for class certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019. 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’s motion for class certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants’ opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA’s reply due April 23, 2018. On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and possible revisions to the case schedule. On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the Court. On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report. On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status conference at which the parties reported on the progress of discovery to date. Party and non-party document discovery in the case has continued. To date, SEPTA has taken a few non-party depositions. 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 Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 23, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel. 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, and on September 27, 2018, the FRB filed its brief in opposition to SEPTA’s motion. On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in support of its 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. Defendants’ briefs in opposition to SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint were filed on April 25, 2019. SEPTA filed a reply brief in further support of its motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on May 9, 2019. 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 June 19, 2019, former defendants SEK and the underwriters of the Company’s March 2010 public offering joined in Orrstown’s motion for protective order. On June 25, 2019, SEPTA filed its opposition to Orrstown’s motion. On July 9, 2019, Orrstown filed a reply brief in further support of its motion. 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 is stayed pending a decision on SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. 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 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants. Under the Court-ordered briefing schedule, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24, 2020. SEPTA’s oppositions are due May 29, 2020, and defendants’ reply briefs are due June 19, 2020. 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 Court to certify its February 14, 2020 Order for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. SEPTA filed its brief in opposition on April 21, 2020. Defendants’ reply briefs are due May 11, 2020. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA’s third amended complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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