The Company has grown through a combination of organic growth and acquisitions. Since 1998, the Company has acquired eight community banks with an aggregate asset total of approximately $2.28 billion, including its most recent acquisition of Highlands State Bank and its parent, Highlands Bancorp, Inc. ("Highlands Bancorp"), which was completed on January 4, 2019. All of the acquired banks have been merged into Lakeland and the acquired holding companies, if applicable, have been merged into the Company.

At December 31, 2019,2020, Lakeland Bancorp had total consolidated assets of $6.7$7.66 billion, total consolidated deposits of $5.3$6.46 billion, total consolidated loans, net of the allowance for loancredit losses on loans, of $5.1$5.95 billion and total consolidated stockholders’ equity of $725.3$763.8 million.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“Forward-Looking Statements”). Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in such Forward-Looking Statements. Certain factors which could materially affect such results and the future performance of the Company are described in Item 1A - Risk Factors of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Commercial Bank Services

Through Lakeland, the Company offers a broad range of lending, depository, and related financial services to individuals and small to medium sized businesses located primarily in northern and central New Jersey, the Hudson Valley region in New York and surrounding areas. In the lending area, these services include commercial real estate loans, commercial and industrial loans, short and medium term loans, lines of credit, letters of credit, inventory and accounts receivable financing, real estate construction loans, mortgage loans, small business administrationSmall Business Administration (“SBA”) loans and merchant credit card services. The Company participated in the SBA's Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") beginning in April 2020. Through Lakeland’s equipment financingfinance division, the Company provides a financing solution to small and medium sizedmedium-sized companies whothat prefer to lease equipment over other financial alternatives. Lakeland’s asset basedasset-based loan department provides commercial borrowers with another lending alternative.

Depository products include demand deposits, as well as savings, money market and time accounts. Lakeland offers internet banking, mobile banking, wire transfer and night depository services to the business community and municipal relationships. In addition, Lakeland offers cash management services, such as remote capture of deposits and overnight sweep repurchase agreements.

Consumer Banking

Lakeland also offers a broad range of consumer banking services, including checking accounts, savings accounts, interest-bearing checking accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, internet banking, secured and unsecured loans, consumer installment loans, mortgage loans, and safe deposit services.

Other Services

Investment advisory services for individuals and businesses are also available. Additionally, through Lakeland Title Group LLC, the Bank provides commercial title insurance services through Lakeland Title Group LLC and life insurance products through Lakeland Financial Services Agency, Inc.

Lakeland faces considerableintense competition in its market areas for deposits and loans from other depository institutions. Many of Lakeland’s depository institution competitors have substantially greater resources, broader geographic markets, and higher lending limits than Lakeland and are also able to provide more services and make greater use of media advertising. In recent years, intense market demands, economic pressures, increased customer awareness of products and services and the availability of electronic services have forced banking institutions to diversify their services and become more cost-effective.

Lakeland also competes with credit unions, brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market mutual funds, consumer finance companies, mortgage companies, fintechs and other financial companies, some of which are not subject to the same degree of regulation and restrictions as Lakeland in attracting deposits and making loans. Interest rates on deposit accounts, convenience of facilities, products and services, and marketing are all significant factors in the competition for deposits. Competition for loans comes from other commercial banks, savings institutions, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, credit unions, mortgage banking firms, financial technology and other institutional lenders. Lakeland primarily competes for loan originations through its structuring of loan transactions and the overall quality of service it provides. Competition is affected by the availability of lendable funds, general and local economic conditions, interest rates, and other factors that are not readily predictable. The Company expects that competition will continue or intensify in the future.

Concentration

The Company is not dependent on deposits or exposed by loan concentrations to a single customer or a few customers, the loss of any one or more of which would have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition of the Company.

At December 31, 2020, the Company employed 711 associates, including 45 part-time associates, of which approximately 68% are women. At December 31, 2019, the Company had 692 full-time equivalent employees.company employed 716 associates, including 52 part-time associates. As a financial institution, approximately 53% of our associates are located at branch or loan production offices and the remainder are located at our administrative offices. The success of our business is highly dependent on our associates, who are dedicated to our mission to deliver superior customer service that exceeds customer expectations by understanding and anticipating their financial needs. We seek to hire well-qualified associates to sustain and build on our culture of service and performance. Our selection and promotion processes are without bias and include the active recruitment of minorities and women. None of these employees isour associates are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

The Company considers relationssafety, health and wellness of our associates is a top priority. The COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges with its employeesregard to be good.maintaining associate safety while continuing successful operations. We instituted remote working plans in March 2020 and were able to transition, over a short period of time, 63% of our associates to effectively working from remote locations. We ensured a safely-distanced working environment for associates performing customer-facing activities at branches and operations centers, closing branch lobbies as necessary. All associates are prohibited from working on-site when they, or a close family member, experience symptoms of a possible COVID-19 illness and generally used their paid time off to cover compensation during such absences. On an ongoing basis, we further promote the health and wellness of our associates by strongly encouraging work-life balance, offering flexible work schedules, keeping the associate portion of health care premiums to a minimum and sponsoring various wellness programs, whereby associates are encouraged to incorporate healthy habits into their daily routines.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The Company is a registered bank holding company under the Federal Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Holding Company Act”), and is required to file with the Federal Reserve Board an annual report and such additional information as the Federal Reserve Board may require pursuant to the Holding Company Act. The Company has also elected financial holding company status under the Modernization Act, as further discussed below. The Company is subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board.

Lakeland is a state chartered commercial bank subject to supervision and examination by the Department of Banking and Insurance of the State of New Jersey (the “Department”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The regulations of the State of New Jersey and FDIC govern most aspects of Lakeland’s business, including reserves against deposits, loans, investments, mergers and acquisitions, borrowings, dividends, and location of branch offices. Lakeland is subject to certain restrictions imposed by law on, among other things, (i) the maximum amount of obligations of any one person or entity which may be outstanding at any one time, (ii) investments in stock or other securities of the Company or any subsidiary of the Company, and (iii) the taking of such stock or securities as collateral for loans to any borrower.

The Holding Company Act limits the activities which may be engaged in by the Company and its subsidiaries to those of banking, the ownership and acquisition of assets and securities of banking organizations, and the management of banking organizations, and to certain non-banking activities which the Federal Reserve Board finds, by order or regulation, to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling a bank as to be a proper incident thereto. The Federal Reserve Board is empowered to differentiate between activities by a bank holding company or a subsidiary thereof and activities commenced by acquisition of a going concern.

With respect to non-banking activities, the Federal Reserve Board has by regulation determined that several non-banking activities are closely related to banking within the meaning of the Holding Company Act and thus may be performed by bank holding companies. The Company has also elected "financial holding company" status, which allows it to engage in a broader array of financial activities than a standard bank holding company. Although the Company’s management periodically reviews other avenues of business opportunities that are included in that regulation, the Company has no present plans to engage in any of these activities other than providing investment brokerage services.

With respect to the acquisition of banking organizations, the Company is required to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before it may, by merger, purchase or otherwise, directly or indirectly acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank or bank holding company, if, after such acquisition, it will own or control more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank or bank holding company.

There are various legal limitations, including Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which govern the extent to which a bank subsidiary may finance or otherwise supply funds to its holding company or its holding company’s non-bank subsidiaries. Under federal law, no bank subsidiary may, subject to certain limited exceptions, make loans or extensions of credit to, or investments in the securities of, its parent or the non-bank subsidiaries of its parent (other than direct subsidiaries of such bank which are not financial subsidiaries) or take their securities as collateral for loans to any borrower. Each bank subsidiary is also subject to collateral security requirements for any loans or extensions of credit permitted by such exceptions.

The policy of theFederal law and Federal Reserve Board policy provides that a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks and to commit resources to support such subsidiary banks in circumstances in which it might not do so absent such policy.

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 permits bank holding companies to acquire banks in states other than their home state, regardless of applicable state law. New Jersey enacted legislation to authorize interstate banking and branching and the entry into New Jersey of foreign country banks. New Jersey did not authorize de novo branching into the state. However, under federal law, federal savings banks, which meet certain conditions, may branch de novo into a state, regardless of state law. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) removes the restrictions on interstate branching contained in the Riegle-Neal Act, and allows national banks and state banks to establish branches in any state if, under the laws of the state in which the branch is to be located, a state bank chartered by that state would be permitted to establish the branch.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (the “Modernization Act”) became effective in early 2000. The Modernization Act:

The Modernization Act also modified other financial laws, including laws related to financial privacy and community reinvestment.

As part of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Congress adopted the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (collectively, the “USA PATRIOT Act”). By way of amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act, Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act encourages information sharing among bank regulatory agencies and law enforcement bodies. Further, certain provisions of Title III impose affirmative obligations on a broad range of financial institutions, including banks, thrifts, brokers, dealers, credit unions, money transfer agents and parties registered under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Among other requirements, Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act imposes the following requirements with respect to financial institutions:

The United States Treasury Department has issued a number of implementing regulations which address various requirements of the USA PATRIOT Act and are applicable to financial institutions such as Lakeland. These regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of their customers. Banking agencies have strictly enforced various anti-money laundering and suspicious activity reporting requirements using formal and informal enforcement tools to cause banks to comply with these provisions.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “SOA”) imposes a variety of corporate governance, accounting and corporate reporting obligations upon public companies, designed in general to promote corporate responsibility and to protect investors.

The SOA addresses, among other matters:

•    audit committees for all reporting companies;

•    certification of financial statements by the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer;

•    the forfeiture of bonuses or other incentive-based compensation and profits from the sale of an issuer’s securities by directors and senior officers in the twelve month period following initial publication of any financial statements that later require restatement;

•    a prohibition on insider trading during pension plan blackout periods;

•    disclosure of off-balance sheet transactions;

•    a prohibition on personal loans to directors and officers (other than loans made by an insured depository institution (as defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), if the loan is subject to the insider lending restrictions of Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act);

•    expedited filing requirements for Form 4’s;

•    disclosure of a code of ethics and filing a Form 8-K for a change or waiver of such code;

“real•    “real time” filing of periodic reports;

•    the formation of a public accounting oversight board;

•    auditor independence; and

•    various increased criminal penalties for violations of the securities laws.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has enacted various rules to implement various provisions of the SOA with respect to, among other matters, disclosure in periodic filings pursuant to the Exchange Act. Each of the national stock exchanges, including the NASDAQ Stock Market where Lakeland Bancorp’s common stock is listed, have corporate governance listing standards, including rules strengthening director independence requirements for boards, and requiring the adoption of charters for the nominating and corporate governance, compensation and audit committees.

Transactions between a bank and its “affiliates” are quantitatively and qualitatively restricted under the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act applies Sections 23A and 23B to insured nonmember banks in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were members of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Board has also issued Regulation W, which codifies prior regulations under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and interpretative guidance with respect to affiliate transactions. Regulation W incorporates the exemption from the affiliate transaction rules but expands the exemption to cover the purchase of any type of loan or extension of credit from an affiliate. Affiliates of a bank include, among other entities, the bank’s holding company and companies that are under common control with the bank. The Company is considered to be an affiliate of Lakeland. In general, subject to certain specified exemptions, a bank or its subsidiaries are limited in their ability to engage in “covered transactions” with affiliates:

•    to an amount equal to 10% of the bank’s capital and surplus, in the case of covered transactions with any one affiliate; and

•    to an amount equal to 20% of the bank’s capital and surplus, in the case of covered transactions with all affiliates.

In addition, a bank and its subsidiaries may engage in covered transactions and other specified transactions only on terms and under circumstances that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the bank or its subsidiary, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies. A “covered transaction” includes:

•    a loan or extension of credit to an affiliate;

•    a purchase of, or an investment in, securities issued by an affiliate;

•    a purchase of assets from an affiliate, with some exceptions;

•    the acceptance of securities issued by an affiliate as collateral for a loan or extension of credit to any party; and

•    the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate.

In addition, under Regulation W:

•    a bank and its subsidiaries may not purchase a low-quality asset from an affiliate;

•    covered transactions and other specified transactions between a bank or its subsidiaries and an affiliate must be on terms and conditions that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices; and

•    with some exceptions, each loan or extension of credit by a bank to an affiliate must be secured by certain types of collateral with a market value ranging from 100% to 130%, depending on the type of collateral, of the amount of the loan or extension of credit.

Regulation W generally excludes all non-bank and non-savings association subsidiaries of banks from treatment as affiliates, except to the extent that the Federal Reserve Board decides to treat these subsidiaries as affiliates.affiliates or if the subsidiary is a "financial subsidiary" that engages in an activity that is not permitted for the bank directly.

Under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), as implemented by FDIC regulations, a state bank has a continuing and affirmative obligation consistent with its safe and sound operation to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions nor does it limit an institution’s discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community. The CRA requires the FDIC, in connection with its examination of a state non-member bank, to assess the bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take that record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by the bank. Under the FDIC’s CRA evaluation system, the FDIC focuses on three tests: (i) a lending test, to evaluate the institution’s record of making loans in its service areas; (ii) an investment test, to evaluate the institution’s record of investing in community development projects, affordable housing and programs benefiting low or moderate income individuals and businesses; and (iii) a service test, to evaluate the institution’s delivery of services through its branches, ATMs and other offices. Receipt of a "Needs to Improve" or "Substantial Noncompliance" ratings can, among other things, obstruct regulatory approval for new branches and mergers. The CRA also requires all institutions to make public disclosure of their CRA ratings. Lakeland Bank received an “outstanding”“Outstanding” CRA rating in its most recent examination.

The earnings of the Company are and will be affected by domestic economic conditions and the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government and its agencies. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had, and will likely continue to have, an important impact on the operating results of commercial banks through the Board’s power to implement national monetary policy in order to, among other things, curb inflation or combat a recession. The Federal Reserve Board has a major effect upon the levels of bank loans, investments and deposits through its open market operations in United States government securities and through its regulation of, among other things, the discount rate of borrowings of banks and the reserve requirements against bank deposits. It is not possible to predict the nature and impact of future changes in monetary fiscal policies.

The Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from Lakeland. Virtually all of the revenue of the Company available for payment of dividends on its capital stock will result from amounts paid to the Company by Lakeland. All such dividends are subject to various limitations imposed by federal and state laws and by regulations and policies adopted by federal and state regulatory agencies. Under New Jersey state law, a bank may not pay dividends unless, following the dividend payment, the capital stock of the bank would be unimpaired and either (a) the bank will have a surplus of not less than 50% of its capital stock, or, if not, (b) the payment of the dividend will not reduce the surplus of the bank.

If, in the opinion of the FDIC, a bank under its jurisdiction is engaged in or is about to engage in an unsafe or unsound practice (which could include the payment of dividends), the FDIC may require after notice and hearing, that such bank cease and desist from such practice or, as a result of an unrelated practice, require the bank to limit dividends in the future. The Federal Reserve Board has similar authority with respect to bank holding companies. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC have issued policy statements which provide that insured banks and bank holding companies should generally only pay dividends out of current operating earnings. Regulatory pressures to reclassify and charge off loans and to establish additional loan loss reserves can have the effect of reducing current operating earnings and thus impacting an institution’s ability to pay dividends. Further, as described herein, the regulatory authorities have established guidelines with respect to the maintenance of appropriate levels of capital by a bank or bank holding company under their jurisdiction. Compliance with the standards set forth in these policy statements and guidelines could limit the amount of dividends which the Company and Lakeland may pay. Banking institutions that fail to maintain the minimum capital ratios, or that maintain the requisite minimum capital ratios but do so at a level below the minimum capital ratios plus the applicable capital conservation buffer, will face constraints on their ability to pay dividends. See “Capital Requirements” below.

Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), each federal banking agency has promulgated regulations, specifying the levels at which a financial institution would be considered “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” or “critically undercapitalized,” and to take certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions based on the capital level of the institution. To qualify to engage in activities as a financial activitiesholding company under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, all depository institutions must be “well capitalized.” The financial holding company of a bank will be put under directives to raise its capital levels or divest its activities if the depository institution falls from that level.

In July 2013, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC and the Comptroller of the Currency adopted final rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations (the “Basel Rules”). The Basel Rules implemented the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework, commonly referred to as Basel III, for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, as discussed below. The Basel Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and depository institutions, including Lakeland Bancorpthe Company and Lakeland, Bank, compared to prior U.S. risk-based capital rules. The Basel Rules define the components of capital and address other issues affecting the numerator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios. The Basel Rules also address risk weights and other issues affecting the denominator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios and replace the existing risk-weighting approach, which was derived from Basel I capital accords of the Basel Committee, with a more risk-sensitive approach based, in part, on the standardized approach in the Basel Committee’s 2004 Basel II capital accords. The Basel Rules also implement the requirements of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act to remove references to credit ratings from the federal banking agencies’ rules.

The Basel Rules became effective for us on January 1, 2015 (subject to phase-in periods for certain components).

For bank holding companies and banks like Lakeland Bancorpthe Company and Lakeland, Bank, January 1, 2015 was the start date for compliance with the revised minimum regulatory capital ratios and for determining risk-weighted assets under what the Basel Rules call a “standardized approach.” As of January 1, 2015, Lakeland Bancorpthe Company and Lakeland Bank were required to maintain the following minimum capital ratios, expressed as a percentage of risk-weighted assets:

In addition, Lakeland Bancorpthe Company and Lakeland Bank are subject to a leverage ratio requirement of 4.0% (calculated as Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets as reported on the consolidated financial statements).

The Basel Rules also require a “capital conservation buffer.” As of the full phase-in on January 1, 2019, Lakeland Bancorpthe Company and Lakeland Bank were required to maintain a 2.5% capital conservation buffer, in addition to the minimum capital ratios described above, effectively resulting in the following minimum capital ratios on January 1, 2019:

The purpose of the capital conservation buffer is to ensure that banking organizations conserve capital when it is needed most, allowing them to weather periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a CET1, Tier 1 Capital Ratio and Total Capital Ratio above the minimum capital ratios but below the minimum capital ratios plus the capital conservation buffer will face constraints on their ability to pay dividends, repurchase equity and pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers, based on the amount of the shortfall.

The Basel Rules also adopted a “countercyclical capital buffer,” which is not applicable to Lakeland Bancorp or Lakeland Bank. That buffer is applicable only to “advanced approaches banking organizations,” which generally are those with consolidated total assets of at least $250 billion.

Under prior capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in capital were excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under the Basel Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income items are not excluded; however, banking organizations such as Lakeland Bancorpthe Company and Lakeland Bank were permitted to make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items effective as of January 1, 2015. Lakeland Bancorp and Lakeland Bank made such an election to continue to exclude these items.

While the Basel Rules generally require the phase-out of non-qualifying capital instruments such as trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock, holding companies with less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009, such as Lakeland Bancorp, maythe Company, were permitted to permanently include non-qualifying instruments that were issued and included in Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital prior to May 19, 2010 in Additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital until they redeem such instruments or until the instruments mature.

The Basel Rules prescribe a standardized approach for calculating risk-weighted assets that expands the risk-weighting categories from the previous four categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. Government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. In addition, the Basel Rules provide more advantageous risk weights for derivatives and repurchase-style transactions cleared through a qualifying central counterparty and increase the scope of eligible guarantors and eligible collateral for purposes of credit risk mitigation.

Consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act, the Basel Rules adopt alternatives to credit ratings for calculating the risk-weighting for certain assets.

With respect to Lakeland, Bank, the Basel Rules revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations under Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by (i) introducing a CET1 ratio requirement at each capital quality level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status (a new standard); (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8% (increased from 6%); and (iii) requiring a leverage ratio of 5% to be well-capitalized (increased from the previously required leverage ratio of 3% or 4%). The Basel Rules do not change the total risk-based capital requirement for any “prompt corrective action” category.

Effective as of January 1, 2015, the FDIC’s regulations implementing these provisions of FDICIA provide that an institution will be classified as “well capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of at least 6.5 percent, (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5.0 percent, and (v) meets certain other requirements. An institution will be classified as “adequately capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of at least 4.5 percent, (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 4.0 percent, and (v) does not meet the definition of “well capitalized.” An institution will be classified as “undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of less than 4.5 percent or (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of less than 4.0 percent. An institution will be classified as “significantly undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of less than 3.0 percent or (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of less than 3.0 percent. An institution will be classified as “critically undercapitalized” if it has a tangible equity to total assets ratio that is equal to or less than 2.0 percent. An insured depository institution may be deemed to be in a lower capitalization category if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. Similar categories apply to bank holding companies. With the capital conservation buffer fully phased in as of January 1, 2019, the capital ratios applicable to depository institutions under the Basel Rules exceed the ratios to be considered well-capitalized under the prompt corrective action regulations.

As of December 31, 2019, Lakeland Bancorp2020, the Company and Lakeland Bank met all capital requirements under the Basel Rules as then in effect, including the fully phased-in capital conservation buffer requirement. The Bank was classified as "well capitalized" on that date.

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “EGRRCPA”(“EGRRCPA”) was signed into law in May 2018. The EGRRCPA, among other matters, amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require federal banking agencies to develop a specified Community Bank Leverage Ratio (the ratio of a bank's Tier 1 capital to its average total consolidated assets)

for banks with assets of less than $10 billion. Qualifying participating banks that exceed this ratio shall be deemed to comply with all other capital and leverage requirements. In September 2019, the FDIC approved a final rule allowing community banks with a leverage capital ratio of at least 9% to be considered in compliance with Basel III capital requirements and exempt from the Basel Rules calculations. Under the final rule, banks with less than $10 billion in assets may elect the Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework if they meet the 9% ratio and if they hold 25% or less of assets in off-balance sheet exposures, and 5% or less of assets in trading assets and liabilities. For institutions that fall below the 9% capital requirement but remain above 8%, the final rule establishes a two-quarter grace period to either meet the qualifying criteria again or comply with the generally applicable capital rule. An eligible financial institution that opts into this new framework and then fails to satisfy this new framework after expiration of the grace period will then be required to satisfy the generally applicable capital requirements. Management is still reviewing the Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework, but doesdid not expect that Lakeland Bancorp or Lakeland Bank will elect to use the Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework.

Lakeland’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the basic federal deposit insurance limit was permanently increased to at least $250,000.

In November 2010, the FDIC approved a rule to change the assessment base from adjusted domestic deposits to average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since the new base is larger than the current base, theThe FDIC’s rule also lowered the total base assessment rates, which are now established for banks of less than $10 billion of assets at 1.5 to between 2.5 and 916 basis points for banks inwith the lowest risk category,strongest composite examination rating, and 3011 to 4530 basis points for banks in the highest risk category.category with the weakest examination rating.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has established 2.0% as the designated reserve ratio (“DRR”), that is, the ratio of the DIF to insured deposits. The FDIC has adopted a plan under which itthe DIF will meet the statutory minimum DRR of 1.35% by September 30, 2020, the deadline imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act requiresrequired the FDIC to offset the effect on institutions with assets less than $10 billion of the increase in the statutory minimum DRR to 1.35% from the former statutory minimum of 1.15%. In March 2016, the FDIC adopted a rule that imposes a surcharge on the quarterly assessments of insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. The surcharge equalsequaled an annual rate of 4.5 basis points applied to the institution’s assessment base, with certain adjustments. When the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF)DIF Reserve Ratio is at or above 1.38% in a given quarter, credits will bewere applied to banks' assessment payments. The Company began receiving the Small Bank Assessment credit in the third quarter of 2019 and, as a result, made no FDIC assessment payments in the third and fourth quarter of 2019. Full payments to the FDIC resumed in the second quarter of 2020. The Company paid $908,000$2.1 million in total FDIC assessments in 20192020 and $1.6 million$431,000 in 2018.2019.

The Dodd-FrankCoronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act which("CARES Act") was signed into law on July 21, 2010, significantly changedMarch 27, 2020 and provided over $2.0 trillion in emergency economic relief to individuals and businesses impacted by the bank regulatory landscapeCOVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act authorized the Small Business Administration ("SBA") to temporarily guarantee loans under a new 7(a) loan program called the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). As a qualified SBA lender, we were automatically authorized to originate PPP loans. An eligible business could apply for a PPP loan up to the lesser of (1) 2.5 times its average monthly payroll costs or (2) $10.0 million. PPP loans have (a) an interest rate of 1.00%, (b) a two-year loan term to maturity; and (c) principal and interest payments deferred for six months from the date of the disbursement. The SBA guarantees 100% of the PPP loans made to eligible borrowers. The entire principal amount of the borrower's PPP loan is eligible to be reduced by the loan forgiveness amount under the PPP so long as employee and compensation levels of the business are maintained and 75% of the loan proceeds are used for payroll expenses, with the remaining 25% of the loan proceeds used for other qualifying expenses.

In June 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("PPP Flexibility") to ease provisions of PPP related to the time period permitted to use the proceeds of loans, the deferral period of principal and interest payments on loans not forgiven and an extension of the maturity date of loan and loan forgiveness on loans. Key changes include (a) extending from two to five years the minimum maturity of any remaining loan balance after an application for loan forgiveness (for those loans closed after the enactment of PPP Flexibility); (b) extending the “covered period” (i.e., when costs that are eligible for forgiveness must be paid or incurred) from eight weeks to 24 weeks (or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier); (c) reducing from 75 percent to 60 percent the amount of loan proceeds that must be used for payroll costs although the remainder must continue to be allocated to interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities; (d) permitting an exemption from reductions in loan forgiveness amounts based on reductions in full-time equivalent employees if the borrower, in good faith, documents an inability to return to the same level of business activity due to standards for sanitation, social distancing, or other worker or customer safety requirements established by the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), the Center for Disease Control ("CDC") or Occupational, Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"); and (e) allowing deferral of payments until the amount of forgiveness is remitted by the SBA to the lender or, if the borrower has impactednot applied for forgiveness, ten months after the expiration of the covered period. The provisions of PPP Flexibility became effective upon enactment and will continueapply to have a broad impactall loans made under the PPP. The SBA released guidance on PPP loan forgiveness, which presently includes three

different application methods depending primarily on the size of the PPP loan, reductions in staffing or salaries, or a business’ inability to operate at pre-COVID levels due to compliance with certain federally imposed requirements related to COVID-19. To qualify for full forgiveness, businesses must document that at least 60% of the PPP loan amount was used towards payroll costs and that the remaining 40% was used for other eligible costs such as mortgage interest, rent payments and/or utilities. Forgiveness was originally intended to be reduced by any Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) advance amount the business received.

Section 4013 of the CARES Act, as interpreted by the "Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working With Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (Revised)" (the “Revised Statement”), dated April 17, 2020, includes criteria that enable financial services industryinstitutions to exclude from TDR status loans that are modified in connection with COVID-19. Under these provisions, TDR status is not required for the term of a loan modification if (i) the loan modification is made in connection with COVID-19, (ii) the loan was not past due more than 30 days as of December 31, 2019 and (iii) the loan modification is entered into during the period between March 1, 2020, and the earlier of (a) 60 days after COVID-19 is no longer characterized as a result of significant regulatory and compliance changes, including, among other things, (i) enhanced resolution authority over troubled and failing banks and their holding companies; (ii) increased capital and liquidity requirements; (iii) increased regulatory examination fees; (iv) changesNational Emergency or (b) December 31, 2020. Furthermore, pursuant to assessmentsthe Revised Statement, for loan modifications that do not meet these criteria but are made in connection with COVID-19, such loans may be presumed not to be paidTDR if they are current at a time the loan modification program was implemented and the modifications are short-term (e.g., six months). If the criteria are not met under either Section 4013 or the Revised Statement, banks are required to follow their existing accounting policies to determine whether COVID-related modifications should be accounted for as a TDR. The Company has elected to suspend the FDIC forclassification of loan modifications as TDR if they qualify under Section 4013 or the Revised Statement.

The CARES Act also provided financial institutions with the option to defer adoption of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Accounting Standard Update ("ASU") 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (Topic 326) ("ASU 2016-13") until the earlier of the end of the national emergency or December 31, 2020. The CARES Act also required the federal deposit insurance; and (v) numerous other provisions designedbanking agencies to improve supervision and oversighttemporarily lower the Community Bank Leverage Ratio from 9% of and strengthening safety and soundnessaverage total consolidated assets to 8% for the financial services sector. Generally,remainder of 2020. The ratio rose to 8.5% for calendar year 2021 and will revert to 9% thereafter.

On December 27, 2020, the Dodd-FrankConsolidated Appropriations Act, became effective the day after it2021 (the "CAA") was signed into law, but different effective dates appliedlaw. In addition to specific sections of the law.

Proposed Legislation

From time to time proposals are made in the United States Congress, the New Jersey Legislature, and before various bank regulatory authorities, which would alter the powers of, and place restrictions on, different types of banking organizations. It is impossible to predict the impact, if any, of potential legislative trends on the business of the Company and its subsidiaries.

In accordance with federal law providing for deregulation of interest on all deposits, banks and thrift organizations are now unrestricted by law or regulation from paying interest at any rate on most time deposits. It is not clear whether deregulation and other pending changes in certain aspects of the banking industry will result in further increases in the cost of funds in relation to prevailing lending rates.

Our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows can be affected by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, those set forth below, any one of which could cause our actual results to vary materially from recent results or from our anticipated future results.

Our allowance for loancredit losses on loans may not be adequate to cover actual losses.

Like all commercial banks, Lakeland Bank maintains an allowance for loancredit losses on loans to provide for loan defaults and non-performance. If our allowance for loancredit losses on loans is not adequate to cover actual loan losses, we may be required to significantly increase future provisions for loancredit losses on loans, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results. Our allowance for loan losses is determined by analyzing historical loan losses, current trends in delinquencies and charge-offs, plans for problem loan resolution, the opinions of our regulators, changes in the size and composition of the loan portfolio and industry information. We also consider the possible effects of economic events, which are difficult to predict. The amount of future losses is affected by changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, many of which are beyond our control. These losses may exceed our current estimates. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review our loans and the allowance for loan losses. While we believe that our allowance for loan losses in relation to our current loan portfolio is adequate to cover current losses, we cannot assure you that we will not need to increase our allowance for loan losses or that the regulators will not require us to increase this allowance. Future increases in our allowance for loan losses could materially and adversely affect our earnings and profitability.

Our CECL methodology includes the following key factors and assumptions for all loan portfolio segments: a) the calculation of a baseline lifetime loss by applying a segment-specific historical average annual loss rate, calculated using an open pool method, applied over the remaining life of each instrument; b) a single set of economic forecast inputs for the reasonable and supportable period; c) a reasonable and supportable forecast period, which reflects management's expectations of losses based on forward-looking economic scenarios over that time; d) baseline lifetime loss rates adjusted for changes in macroeconomic conditions over the reasonable and supportable forecast period via a series of adjustment factors developed using a third-party developed and supported top-down statistical model suite that uses a set of relevant economic forecast inputs sourced from a leading global forecasting firm; e) a reversion period (after the reasonable and supportable forecast period) using a straight-line approach; f) a historical loss period which represents a full economic credit cycle (with the exception of equipment finance loans which uses a shorter time period due to circumstances unique to that segment); and g) expected prepayment rates estimated on more recent historical experience adjusted for refinance incentive, seasoning and burnout, as applicable. The newamount of future losses is affected by changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates, many of which are beyond our control. These losses may exceed our current estimates. The Company also considers five standard qualitative general reserve factors ("qualitative adjustments"): nature and volume of loans, lending management, policy and procedures, independent review and changes in environment. Qualitative adjustments are designed to address risks that are not captured in the quantitative reserves (“quantitative reserve”). Other qualitative adjustments or model overlays may also be recorded based on expert credit judgment in circumstances where, in the Company’s view, the standard qualitative reserve factors do not capture all relevant risk factors. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review our loans and the corresponding allowance for credit losses. While we believe that our allowance for credit losses on loans in relation to our current loan portfolio is adequate to cover current and expected losses, we cannot assure you that we will be mandatorynot need to increase our allowance for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019credit losses on loans or that the regulators will not require us to increase this allowance. Future increases in our allowance for credit losses on loans could materially and for interim periods within those fiscal years. adversely affect our earnings and profitability.

Under the CECL model, we will beare required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. This differs significantly from the "incurred loss" model required under currentprevious GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will significantly affectaffects how we determine our allowance for loancredit losses on loans and will require us to increase our allowance. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses.

Based on an analysis performed on our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2019, we expect an increase in our allowance for loan losses (and our reserves for unfunded commitments) ranging from 10% to 25%. The final number will be dependent on the refinement of our overall methodology primarily related to our qualitative adjustments and purchased credit deteriorated loans, and certain assumptions, which we are currently finalizing and expect to be completed in the coming weeks. The increase will result in a one-time cumulative effect adjustment to our allowance for loan losses, and a corresponding decrease to retained earnings as of the January 1, 2020 effective date. Any future quarterly changes to our allowance will depend on the current state of the economy, forecasted macroeconomic conditions, and the composition and performance of our loan portfolio at the time.time and other factors captured through qualitative adjustments, including idiosyncratic factors.

The concentration of our commercial real estate loan portfolio may subject us to increased regulatory analysis, or otherwise adversely affect our business and operating results.

The FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC have promulgated joint guidance on sound risk management practices for financial institutions with concentrations in commercial real estate (CRE) lending. The 2006 interagency guidance did not establish specific CRE lending limits or caps; rather, the guidance set forth supervisory criteria to serve as levels of bank CRE concentration above which certain financial institutions may be identified for further supervisory analysis. According to the guidelines, institutions could be subject to further analysis if (i) their loans for construction, land, and land development (CLD) represent 100% or more of the institution's total risk-based capital, or (ii) their total non-owner-occupiednon-owner occupied CRE loans (including

CLD loans), as defined, represent 300% or more of the institution’s total risk-based capital, and further, that the institution’s non-owner-occupiednon-owner occupied CRE loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the previous 36 months.

The Bank’s total reported CLD loans represented 49%36% of total risk-based capital at December 31, 2019.2020. The Bank’s total reported CRE loans to total capital was 431%463% at December 31, 2019,2020, while the Bank’s CRE portfolio has increased by 49%52% over the preceding 36 months. The growth rate of the preceding 36 months included the acquisition of Highlands State Bank.

The Bank’s CRE portfolio is segmented and spread among various property types including retail, office, multi-family, mixed use, industrial, hospitality, healthcare, special use and residential and commercial construction. Management regularly reviews and evaluates its CRE portfolio, including concentrations within the various property types based on current market conditions and risk appetite as well as by utilizing stress testing on material exposures and believes its underwriting practices are sound.

There is no assurance that in the future we will not exceed the levels set forth in the guidelines. Furthermore, the concentration of our commercial real estate portfolio could materially and adversely affect our business and operating results, including our overall profitability, and/or adversely impact the growth of our business, including the growth and composition of our overall loan portfolio.

Our mortgage banking operations expose us to risks that are different than the risks associated with our retail banking operations.

The Bank’s mortgage banking operations are dependent upon the level of demand for residential mortgages. During higher and rising interest rate environments, the level of refinancing activity tends to decline, which can lead to reduced volumes of business and lower revenues that may not exceed our fixed costs to run the business. In addition, mortgages sold to third-party investors are typically subject to certain repurchase provisions related to borrower refinancing, defaults, fraud or other reasons stipulated in the applicable third-party investor agreements. If the fair value of a loan when repurchased is less than the fair value when sold, a bank may be required to charge such shortfall to earnings.

In addition, the “ability to repay” and “Qualified Mortgage” rules promulgated as required by the Dodd-Frank Act (as amended or supplemented to date, including by the EGRRCPA (see "2018 Regulatory Reform,""Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation - Capital Requirements" above)), may expose the Company to greater losses, reduced volume and litigation related expenses and delays in taking title to collateral real estate, if these loans do not perform and borrowers challenge whether the rules were satisfied when originating the loans.

We are subject to various lending and other economic risks that could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Economic, political and market conditions, trends in industry and finance, legislative and regulatory changes, changes in governmental monetary and fiscal policies and inflation affect our business. These factors are beyond our control. A deterioration in economic conditions, particularly in the markets we lend in, could have the following consequences, any of which could materially adversely affect our business:

Deterioration in the real estate market, particularly in New Jersey and the metropolitan New York area, could adversely affect our business. A decline in real estate values in New Jersey and the metropolitan New York area would reduce our ability to recover on defaulted loans by selling the underlying real estate, which would increase the possibility that we may suffer losses on defaulted loans.

We may suffer losses in our loan portfolio despite our underwriting practices.

A decrease in our ability to borrow funds could adversely affect our liquidity.

Our ability to obtain funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank ("FHLB") or through our overnight federal funds lines with other banks could be negatively affected if we experienced a substantial deterioration in our financial condition or if such funding became restricted due to deterioration in the financial markets. While we have a contingency funds management plan to address such a situation if it were to occur (such plan includes deposit promotions, the sale of securities and the curtailment of loan growth, if necessary), a significant decrease in our ability to borrow funds could adversely affect our liquidity.

Public funds deposits are an important source of funds for us and a reduced level of those deposits may hurt our profits.

Public funds deposits are a significant source of funds for our lending and investment activities. The Company’s public funds deposits consist of deposits from local government entities, domiciled in the state of New Jersey, such as school districts, counties and other municipalities, and are collateralized by letters of credit from the FHLB and investment securities. Given our use of these high-average balance public funds deposits as a source of funds, our inability to retain such funds could adversely affect our liquidity. In addition, Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey has proposed the creation of a state-owned bank which would accept public revenues to be invested in New Jersey. A bill was introduced in the New Jersey legislature in January 2018 that calls for the establishment of such a state-run bank. The legislation remains pending, and while no assurance can be provided that such a bank will be created, to the extent that a state-run bank is established and accepts public revenues, the amount of the Company’s public funds deposits could be reduced, which could adversely affect our liquidity.

Further, our public funds deposits are primarily demand deposit accounts or short-term time deposits and are therefore more sensitive to interest rate risks. If we are forced to pay higher rates on our public funds accounts to retain those funds, or if we are unable to retain such funds and we are forced to resort to other sources of funds for our lending and investment activities, such as borrowings from the FHLB, the interest expense associated with these other funding sources may be higher than the rates we are currently paying on our public funds deposits, which would adversely affect our net income.

In particular, regulators,    Regulators, industry groups and certain committees (e.g., the Alternative Reference Rates Committee) have, among other things, published recommended fall-back language for LIBOR-linked financial instruments, identified recommended alternatives for certain LIBOR rates (e.g., the Secured Overnight Financing Rate as the recommended alternative to U.S. Dollar LIBOR), and proposed implementations of the recommended alternatives in floating rate instruments. At this time, it is not possible to predict whether these specific recommendations and proposals will be broadly accepted, whether they will continue to evolve, and what the effect of their implementation may be on the markets for floating-rate financial instruments.

We have a significant number of loans, derivative contracts, borrowings and other financial instruments with attributes that are either directly or indirectly dependent on LIBOR. The transition from LIBOR could create considerable costs and additional risk. Since proposed alternative rates are calculated differently, payments under contracts referencing new rates will differ from those referencing LIBOR. The transition will change our market risk profiles, requiring changes to risk and pricing models, valuation tools, product design and hedging strategies. Furthermore, failure to adequately manage this transition process with our customers could adversely impact our reputation. Although we are currently unable to assess what the ultimate impact of the transition from LIBOR will be, failure to adequately manage the transition could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2019,2020, the Company had approximately $755.9$855.7 million and $124.0$90.8 million in available for sale and held to maturity investment securities, respectively. We may be requiredFor securities available for sale, ASU 2016-13 requires entities to recorddetermine if impairment charges on our investment securities if they suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. Numerous factors, including lack of liquidity for sales of certain investment securities, absence of reliable pricing information for investment securities, adverse changes in business climate, adverse actions by regulators,related to credit loss or unanticipated changes in the competitive environment could have a negative effect on our investment portfolio in future periods.non-credit loss. If an impairment chargeassessment of the security indicates that a credit loss exists, the present value of cash flows expected to be collected from the security are compared to the amortized cost basis of the security, and if the present value of cash flows is less than the amortized cost basis, a credit loss exists and an allowance is created, limited by the amount that the fair value is less than the amortized cost basis. Held to maturity securities are evaluated under the allowance for credit losses model. Held to maturity securities are charged off against the allowance when deemed to be uncollectible and adjustments to the allowance are reported as a component of credit loss expense. If the credit loss expense is significant enough it could affect the ability of Lakeland to upstream dividends to the Company, which could have a material

adverse effect on our liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and could also negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios.

The occurrence of any failure, breach, or interruption in service involving our systems or those of our service providers could damage our reputation, cause losses, increase our expenses, and result in a loss of customers, an increase in regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possibly financial liability, any of which could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and the market price of our stock.

In the ordinary course of business, we rely on electronic communications and information systems to conduct our operations and to store sensitive data. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in significant disruption to our operations. Information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents may include, but are not limited to, attempts to access information, including customer and company information, malicious code, computer viruses and denial of service attacks that could result in unauthorized access, misuse, loss or destruction of data (including confidential customer information), account takeovers, unavailability of service or other events. These types of threats may derive from human error, fraud or malice on the part of external or internal parties, or may result from accidental technological failure. Further, to access our products and services our customers may use computers and mobile devices that are beyond our security control systems. Our technologies, systems, networks and software, and those of other financial institutions have been, and are likely to continue to be, the target of cybersecurity threats and attacks, which may range from uncoordinated individual attempts to sophisticated and targeted measures directed at

Our business requires the collection and retention of large volumes of customer data, including personally identifiable information in various information systems that we maintain and in those maintained by third parties with whom we contract to provide data services. We also maintain important internal company data such as personally identifiable information about our employees and information relating to our operations. The integrity and protection of that customer and company data is important to us.our business and our reputation. Our collection of such customer and company data is subject to extensive regulation and oversight.

Our customers and employees have been, and will continue to be, targeted by parties using fraudulent e-mails and other communications in attempts to misappropriate passwords, bank account information or other personal information or to introduce viruses or other malware through “Trojan horse” programs to our information systems and/or our customers' computers. Though we endeavor to mitigate these threats through product improvements, use of encryption and authentication technology and customer and employee education, such cyber attacks against us, or our merchants and our third party service providers remain a serious issue. The pervasiveness of cybersecurity incidents in general and the risks of cyber crime are complex and continue to evolve. More generally, publicized information concerning security and cyber-related problems could inhibit the use or growth of electronic or web-based applications or solutions as a means of conducting commercial transactions.

Although we make significant efforts to maintain the security and integrity of our information systems and have implemented various measures to manage the risk of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that our security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging. Even the most well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable because attempted security breaches, particularly cyber attacks and intrusions, or disruptions will occur in the future, and because the techniques used in such attempts are constantly evolving and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected. Accordingly, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate security barriers or other preventative measures, and thus it is virtually impossible for us to entirely mitigate this risk. While we maintain specific “cyber” insurance coverage, which would apply in the event of various breach scenarios, the amount of coverage may not be adequate in any particular case. Furthermore, because cyber threat scenarios are inherently difficult to predict and can take many forms, some breaches may not be covered under our cyber insurance coverage. A security breach or other significant disruption of our information systems or those related to our customers, merchants and our third party vendors, including as a result of cyber attacks, could (i) disrupt the proper functioning of our networks and systems and therefore our operations and/or those of certain of our customers; (ii) result in the unauthorized access to, and destruction, loss, theft, misappropriation or release of confidential, sensitive or otherwise valuable information of ours or our customers; (iii) result in a violation of applicable privacy, data breach and other laws, subjecting us to additional regulatory scrutiny and expose us to civil litigation, governmental fines and possible financial liability; (iv) require significant management attention and resources to remedy the damages that result; or (v) harm our reputation or cause a decrease in the number of customers that choose to do business with us. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The inability to stay current with technological change could adversely affect our business model.

Financial institutions continually are required to maintain and upgrade technology in order to provide the most current products and services to their customers, as well as create operational efficiencies. This technology requires personnel resources, as well as significant costs to implement. Failure to successfully implement technological change could adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

The Company embarked on a digital strategy initiative in 2019, which impacts all operational areas of the Bank. There are no guarantees that enhancing the Company's digital capabilities will expand Lakeland's market presence as a community bank or result in an ability to better compete long-term in a fast-paced digital marketplace. In addition, the cost of implementation and the anticipated increase in revenue may not occur as expected.

Our operations rely on certain third party vendors.

We rely on certain external vendors to provide products and services necessary to maintain our day-to-day operations. These third party vendors are sources of operational and informational security risk to us, including risks associated with operational errors, information system interruptions or breaches and unauthorized disclosures of sensitive or confidential client or customer information. If these vendors encounter any of these issues, or if we have difficulty communicating with them, we could be exposed to disruption of operations, loss of service or connectivity to customers, reputational damage, and litigation risk that could have a material adverse effect on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes moreMore stringent capital requirements have been imposed on bank holding companies such as Lakeland Bancorp by, among other things, imposing leverage ratios on bank holding companies and prohibiting new trust preferred issuances from counting as Tier I capital. These restrictions will limit our future capital strategies. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, our currently outstanding trust preferred securities will continue to count as Tier I capital, but we will be unable to issue replacement or additional trust preferred securities which would count as Tier I capital.

As further described above under “Business-Supervision“Item 1. Business-Supervision and Regulation-Capital Requirements,” banks and bank holding companies are required to maintain a capital conservation buffer on top of minimum risk-weighted asset ratios. The capital conservation buffer was fully phased in on January 1, 2019. In September 2019, the regulatory agencies adopted a final rule, effective January 1, 2020, creating a Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework for institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion and that meet other qualifying criteria. The Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework provides for a simpler measure of capital adequacy for qualifying institutions. Qualifying institutions that elect to use the Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework and that maintain a leverage ratio of greater than 9% will be considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements in the regulatory agencies' capital rules and to have met the well-capitalized ratio requirements. In 2020, the CARES Act required the federal banking agencies to temporarily lower the Community Bank Leverage Ratio from 9% of average total consolidated assets to 8% for the remainder of 2020. The ratio rose to 8.5% for calendar year 2021 and will revert to 9% thereafter. Management is still reviewingdid not elect to use the Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework but does not expect that Lakeland Bancorpfor the Company or Lakeland Bank will elect to use the framework.Bank.

Banking institutions which do not maintain capital in excess of the Basel Rule standards including the capital conservation buffer face constraints on the payment of dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall. Accordingly, if the Bank fails to maintain the applicable minimum capital ratios and the capital conservation buffer, distributions to Lakeland Bancorp may be prohibited or limited.

Future increases in minimum capital requirements could adversely affect our net income. Furthermore, our failure to comply with the minimum capital requirements could result in our regulators taking formal or informal actions against us which could restrict our future growth or operations.