UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2013

FORM 10-Ko TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

For the transition period from ______________________________ to _______________.______________.

Commission file number0-106520-10652

NORTH VALLEY BANCORP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's

300 Park Marina Circle, Redding, California 96001

(Address of principal executive offices)       (Zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code(530) 226-2900

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes £o NoSx

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes £o NoSx

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes Sx No £o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes Sx No£o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant'sregistrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.£o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes£o NoSx

The aggregate market value of the voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold was $85,594,000$107,379,000 as of June 30, 2012.2013.

The number of shares outstanding of common stock outstanding as of March 11, 2013,7, 2014, were 6,835,192.6,836,463.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of Registrant'sRegistrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for the 20132014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III, Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Certain matters discussed or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K including, but not limited to, matters described in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and subject to the safe-harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements may contain words related to future projections including, but not limited to, words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “would,” and variations of those words and similar words that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) the duration of financial and economic volatility and actions taken by the United States Congress and governmental agencies, including the United States Department of the Treasury, to deal with challenges to the U.S. financial system; (2) variances in the actual versus projected growth in assets and return on assets; (3) loan losses; (4) expenses; (5) changes in the interest rate environment including interest rates charged on loans, earned on securities investments and paid on deposits and other borrowed funds; (6) competition effects; (7) fee and other noninterest income earned; (8) general economic conditions nationally, regionally, and in the operating market areas of the Company and its subsidiaries including State and local budget issues being addressed in California; (9) changes in the regulatory environment including government intervention in the U.S. financial system; (10) changes in business conditions and inflation; (11) changes in securities markets, public debt markets, and other capital markets; (12) data processing and other operational systems failures or fraud; (13) a further decline in real estate values in the Company’s operating market areas; (14) the effects of uncontrollable events such as terrorism, the threat of terrorism or the impact of the current military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and the conduct of the war on terrorism by the United States and its allies, worsening financial and economic conditions, natural disasters, and disruption of power supplies and communications; and (15) changes in accounting standards, tax laws or regulations and interpretations of such standards, laws or regulations, as well as other factors. The factors set forth under Item 1A, “Risk Factors”, in this report and other cautionary statements and information set forth in this report should be carefully considered and understood as being applicable to all related forward-looking statements contained in this report when evaluating the business prospects of the Company and its subsidiaries.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. By their nature, they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Actual results and shareholder values in the future may differ significantly from those expressed in forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to put undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. Any such statement speaks only as of the date of the report, and in the case of any documents that may be incorporated by reference, as of the date of those documents. We do not undertake any obligation to update or release any revisions to any forward-looking statements, or to report any new information, future event or other circumstances after the date of this report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. However, your attention is directed to any further disclosures made on related subjects in our subsequent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K.

General

North Valley Bancorp (the “Company”) is a bank holding company registered with and subject to regulation and supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB” or the “Board of Governors”). The Company was incorporated in 1980 in the State of California. The Company owns 100% of its principal subsidiaries, North Valley Bank (“NVB” or the “Bank”), North Valley Trading Company (“Trading Company”), which is inactive, North Valley Capital Trust II, North Valley Capital Trust III, and North Valley Capital Statutory Trust IV.The Company acquired Six Rivers National Bank (based in Eureka, California) in 2000, and Yolo Community Bank (based in Woodland, California) in 2004. Over time, the former branches and operations of Six Rivers National Bank and Yolo Community Bank were combined with the branches and operations of North Valley Bank and the information contained in this report reflects their combined results of operations.

At December 31, 20122013 the Company had $902,343,000$917,764,000 in total assets, $492,211,000$509,244,000 in total loans and $768,580,000$787,849,000 in total deposits. The Company does not hold deposits of any one customer or group of customers where the loss of such deposits would have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company'sCompany’s business is not seasonal.

NVB was organized in September 1972, under the laws of the State of California, and commenced operations in February 1973. NVB is principally supervised and regulated by the California Commissioner of Financial Institutionsthe California Department of Business Oversight (the “Commissioner”) and conducts a commercial and retail banking business, which includes accepting demand, savings, and money market rate deposit accounts and time deposits, and making commercial, real estate and consumer loans. It also issues cashier'scashier’s checks and money orders, and provides safe deposit boxes and other customary banking services. As a state-chartered insured member bank, NVB is also subject to regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board of Governors”) and its deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) up to the maximum amount which is $250,000 per separately insured depositor. FDIC-insured deposits are our primary source of funds. As part of our asset-liability management, we analyze the maturities and interest rates of our retail deposits in order to promote stability in our supply of funds, to the extent feasible under changing market conditions. For more deposit information, seeItem 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Balance Sheet Analysis – Deposits.”

NVB has signed agreements with Essex National Securities, Inc., a registered broker-dealer, (“ENSI”) whereby ENSI provides broker/dealer services and standardized investment advice to NVB customers. NVB shares in the fees and commissions paid to ENSI on a pre-determined schedule. Majority ownership of ENSI is held by Samson Investment Partners, Inc., a private investment firm headquartered in New York City, New York.

Recent Development – Proposed Merger with TriCo Bancshares

As announced by the Company on January 21, 2014 and reported in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 22, 2014 (the “Current Report”), the Company has entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated January 21, 2014 (the “Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company would merge with and into TriCo Bancshares, a California corporation (“TriCo”), with TriCo being the surviving corporation. Immediately thereafter, the Company’s subsidiary bank, North Valley Bank, would be merged with and into TriCo’s subsidiary bank, Tri Counties Bank. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, the Company shareholders would receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.9433 shares of TriCo common stock for each share of Company common stock, providing the Company shareholders with aggregate ownership on a pro forma basis of approximately 28.6% of the common stock of the combined company. Holders of the Company’s outstanding in-the-money stock options would receive cash, net of applicable taxes withheld, for the value of their unexercised stock options. The merger is expected to qualify as a tax-free exchange for shareholders who receive shares of TriCo common stock. The transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are expected to close in the second or third quarter of 2014, pending approvals of the Company shareholders and the TriCo shareholders, the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals, and the satisfaction of other closing conditions which are customary for such transactions. For additional information, reference should be made to the text of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, filed as an exhibit to the Current Report, and to other information regarding TriCo and the Company, their respective businesses and the status of their proposed merger, as reported from time to time in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Markets We Serve

The Bank’s head office is located at 300 Park Marina Circle, Redding, California 96001. As of December 31, 2012,2013, the Bank had branch offices in Shasta County (ten branches), Trinity County (two branches), Humboldt County (five branches), Del Norte County (one branch), Yolo County (one branch), Sonoma County (one branch), Placer County (one branch) and Mendocino County (one branch). The Company views its service area as having four distinct markets:

Subordinated Debentures

The Company owns the common stock of three business trusts that have issued an aggregate of $21.0 million in trust preferred securities fully and unconditionally guaranteed by the Company. The entire proceeds of each respective issuance of trust preferred securities were invested by the separate business trusts into junior subordinated debentures issued by the Company, with identical maturity, repricing and payment terms as the respective issuance of trust preferred securities. The aggregate amount of junior subordinated debentures issued by the Company is $22.0$21.7 million, with the maturity dates for the respective debentures ranging from 2033 through 2036. Subject to regulatory approval, the Company may redeem the respective junior subordinated debentures earlier than the maturity date, with certain of the debentures being redeemable beginning in April 2008, July 2009 and March 2011.

On November 9, 2009, the Company elected to defer the payment of interest on these securities. The Company is allowed to defer the payment of interest for up to 20 consecutive quarterly periods without triggering an event of default. The obligation to pay interest is cumulative and continues to accrue. On May 29, 2012, the Company received approval from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and on May 9, 2012, the Company received approval from the California Department of Financial Institutions to pay all deferred interest on its junior subordinated notes underlying its trust preferred securities in the amount of $5,854,000 and to fully redeem its North Valley Capital Trust I notes in the amount of $10,310,000, bearing an interest rate of 10.25%. On July 23, 2012, the Company paid all deferred interest on its junior subordinated notes and on July 25, 2012, it redeemed, in full, the notes associated with North Valley Capital Trust I. Since then, the Company has continued to pay interest on the remaining notes when and as due. For more information about the trust preferred securities and the debentures and certain regulatory restrictions on the payment of interest, seeNotes 10 and 1716 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Supervision and Regulation

The common stock of the Company is subject to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the qualification requirements of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968, as amended. The Company is also subject to the periodic reporting requirements of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which include, but are not limited to, the filing of annual, quarterly and current reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

NVB is charteredlicensed by the California Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”),Business Oversight, and subject to the rules and regulations of the Commissioner. NVB’s deposits are insured by the FDIC, and NVB is a member of the Federal Reserve System. Consequently, NVB is subject to the supervision of, and is regularly examined by, the Commissioner and the Board of Governors. Such supervision and regulation includes comprehensive reviews of all major aspects of the Bank’s business and condition, including its capital ratios, allowance for loan losses and other factors. However, no inference should be drawn that such authorities have approved any such factors. NVB is required to file reports with the Commissioner and the Board of Governors and provide such additional information as the Commissioner and the Board of Governors may require.

NVB was originally chartered by the California Department of Financial Institutions. On July 3, 2012, the California Legislature approved and adopted a reorganization plan proposed by Governor Jerry Brown to restructure the California government with the goal of achieving a more efficient, streamlined and cost-effective state government. As part of the reorganization plan, the Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) and the Department of Corporations (“DOC”) were merged into a newly created California Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”) with a single commissioner in charge of the DBO. Effective July 1, 2013, the former DFI and DOC became the Division of Financial Institutions and the Division of Corporations, respectively, under the DBO. It is uncertain what effect this reorganization may have upon the regulation of NVB in the future.

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Bank Holding Company Act”), and is registered as such with, and subject to the supervision of, the Board of Governors. The Company is required to obtain the approval of the Board of Governors before it may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank, or ownership or control of the voting shares of any bank if, after giving effect to such acquisition of shares, the Company would own or control more than 5% of the voting shares of such bank. The Bank Holding Company Act prohibits the Company from acquiring any voting shares of, or interest in, all or substantially all of the assets of, a bank located outside the State of California unless such an acquisition is specifically authorized by the laws of the state in which such bank is located. Any such interstate acquisition is also subject to the provisions of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994.

The Company, and its subsidiary, NVB, are deemed to be “affiliates” within the meaning of that term as defined in the Federal Reserve Act. This means, for example, that there are limitations (a) on loans between affiliates, and (b) on investments by NVB in affiliates'affiliates’ stock as collateral for loans to any borrower. The Company and its subsidiaries are also subject to certain restrictions with respect to engaging in the underwriting, public sale and distribution of securities.

Capital Adequacy. The Board of Governors and the FDIC have adopted risk-based capital guidelines for evaluating the capital adequacy of bank holding companies and banks. The guidelines are designed to make capital requirements sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banking organizations, to take into account off-balance sheet exposures and to aid in making the definition of bank capital uniform internationally. Under the guidelines, the Company and its banking subsidiaries are required to maintain capital equal to at least 8% of its assets and commitments to extend credit, weighted by risk, of which at least 4% must consist primarily of common equity (including retained earnings) and the remainder may consist of subordinated debt, cumulative preferred stock, or a limited amount of loan loss reserves. The Company and NVB are subject to regulations issued by the Board of Governors and the FDIC, which require maintenance of a certain level of capital. These regulations impose two capital standards: a risk-based capital standard and a leverage capital standard.

Assets, commitments to extend credit and off-balance sheet items are categorized according to risk and certain assets considered to present less risk than others permit maintenance of capital at less than the 8% ratio. For example, most home mortgage loans are placed in a 50% risk category and therefore require maintenance of capital equal to 4% of such loans, while commercial loans are placed in a 100% risk category and therefore require maintenance of capital equal to 8% of such loans.

Under the Board of Governors’ risk-based capital guidelines, assets reported on an institution’s balance sheet and certain off-balance sheet items are assigned to risk categories, each of which has an assigned risk weight. Capital ratios are calculated by dividing the institution’s qualifying capital by its period-end risk-weighted assets. The guidelines establish two categories of qualifying capital: Tier 1 capital (defined to include common stockholders’ equity and noncumulative perpetual preferred stock) and Tier 2 capital which includes, among other items, limited life (and in case of banks, cumulative) preferred stock, mandatory convertible securities, subordinated debt and a limited amount of reserve for loan losses. Tier 2 capital may also include up to 45% of the pretax net unrealized gains on certain available-for-sale equity securities having readily determinable fair values (i.e. the excess, if any, of fair market value over the book value or historical cost of the investment security). The federal regulatory agencies reserve the right to exclude all or a portion of the unrealized gains upon a determination that the equity securities are not prudently valued. Unrealized gains and losses on other types of assets, such as bank premises and available-for-sale debt securities, are not included in Tier 2 capital, but may be taken into account in the evaluation of overall capital adequacy and net unrealized losses on available-for-sale equity securities will continue to be deducted from Tier 1 capital as a cushion against risk. Each institution is required to maintain a risk-based capital ratio (including Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) of 8%, of which at least half must be Tier 1 capital.

Under the Board of Governors’ leverage capital standard, an institution is required to maintain a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to the sum of its quarterly average total assets and quarterly average reserve for loan losses, less intangibles not included in Tier 1 capital. Period-end assets may be used in place of quarterly average total assets on a case-by-case basis. The Board of Governors and the FDIC have adopted a minimum leverage ratio for bank holding companies as a supplement to the risk-weighted capital guidelines. The leverage ratio establishes a minimum Tier 1 ratio of 3% (Tier 1 capital to total assets) for the highest rated bank holding companies or those that have implemented the risk-based capital market risk measure. All other bank holding companies must maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% with higher leverage capital ratios required for bank holding companies that have significant financial and/or operational weakness, a high risk profile, or are undergoing or anticipating rapid growth.

At December 31, 2012,2013, the Company and the Bank were in compliance with the risk-based capital and leverage ratios described above. SeeItem 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, and Note 1716 to the Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated by reference therein, for a listing of the Company'sCompany’s and the Bank’s risk-based capital ratios at December 31, 20122013 and 2011.2012.

FDICIA. The Board of Governors, the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the FDIC have adopted regulations implementing a system of prompt corrective action for insured financial institutions pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and Section 131 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”). These regulations establish five capital categories with the following characteristics: (1) “Well capitalized” - consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or greater and a leverage ratio of 5% or greater, and the institution is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; (2) “Adequately capitalized” - consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4% or greater and a leverage ratio of 4% or greater, and the institution does not meet the definition of a “well capitalized” institution; (3) “Undercapitalized” - consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio less than 8%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4%, or a leverage ratio of less than 4%; (4) “Significantly undercapitalized” - consisting of institutions with a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3%, or a leverage ratio of less than 3%; and (5) “Critically undercapitalized” - consisting of an institution with a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is equal to or less than 2%. NVB is considered “well capitalized” under the framework for prompt corrective action.

The regulations established procedures for classification of financial institutions within the capital categories, filing and reviewing capital restoration plans required under the regulations and procedures for issuance of directives by the appropriate regulatory agency, among other matters. The regulations impose restrictions upon all institutions to refrain from certain actions which would cause an institution to be classified within any one of the three “undercapitalized” categories, such as declaration of dividends or other capital distributions or payment of management fees, if following the distribution or payment the institution would be classified within one of the “undercapitalized” categories. In addition, institutions which are classified in one of the three “undercapitalized” categories are subject to certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions. Mandatory supervisory actions include (1) increased monitoring and review by the appropriate federal banking agency; (2) implementation of a capital restoration plan; (3) total asset growth restrictions; and (4) limitation upon acquisitions, branch expansion, and new business activities without prior approval of the appropriate federal banking agency. Discretionary supervisory actions may include (1) requirements to augment capital; (2) restrictions upon affiliate transactions; (3) restrictions upon deposit gathering activities and interest rates paid; (4) replacement of senior executive officers and directors; (5) restrictions upon activities of the institution and its affiliates; (6) requiring divestiture or sale of the institution; and (7) any other supervisory action that the appropriate federal banking agency determines is necessary to further the purposes of the regulations. Further, the federal banking agencies may not accept a capital restoration plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution'sinstitution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution'sinstitution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company under the guaranty is limited to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5 percent of the depository institution'sinstitution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized, and (ii) the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it were “significantly undercapitalized.” FDICIA also restricts the solicitation and acceptance of and interest rates payable on brokered deposits by insured depository institutions that are not “well capitalized.” An “undercapitalized” institution is not allowed to solicit deposits by offering rates of interest that are significantly higher than the prevailing rates of interest on insured deposits in the particular institution'sinstitution’s normal market areas or in the market areas in which such deposits would otherwise be accepted.

Any financial institution which is classified as “critically undercapitalized” must be placed in conservatorship or receivership within 90 days of such determination unless it is also determined that some other course of action would better serve the purposes of the regulations. Critically undercapitalized institutions are also prohibited from making (but not accruing) any payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt without the prior approval of the FDIC and the FDIC must prohibit a critically undercapitalized institution from taking certain other actions without its prior approval, including (1) entering into any material transaction other than in the usual course of business, including investment expansion, acquisition, sale of assets or other similar actions; (2) extending credit for any highly leveraged transaction; (3) amending articles or bylaws unless required to do so to comply with any law, regulation or order; (4) making any material change in accounting methods; (5) engaging in certain affiliate transactions; (6) paying excessive compensation or bonuses; and (7) paying interest on new or renewed liabilities at rates which would increase the weighted average costs of funds beyond prevailing rates in the institution'sinstitution’s normal market areas.

Under FDICIA, the federal financial institution agencies have adopted regulations which require institutions to establish and maintain comprehensive written real estate lending policies which address certain lending considerations, including loan-to-value limits, loan administrative policies, portfolio diversification standards, and documentation, approval and reporting requirements. FDICIA further generally prohibits an insured state bank from engaging as a principal in any activity that is impermissible for a national bank, absent an FDIC determination that the activity would not pose a significant risk to the BankDeposit Insurance Fund, and that the bank is, and will continue to be, within applicable capital standards. Similar restrictions apply to subsidiaries of insured state banks. The Company does not currently intend to engage in any activities which would be restricted or prohibited under FDICIA.

Effective January 1, 2015, the risk-based capital regulations and prompt corrective regulations, described above under “Capital Adequacy” and “FDICIA,” respectively, have been amended to the extent described below under “Basel III Capital.”

Basel III Capital. On June 7, 2012,In July 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies published notices of proposed rulemakingsissued interim final rules that would revise and replace the current risk-based capital requirements. The proposedThese rules implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The proposedBasel III reforms reflected in the final rules were subjectinclude an increase in the risk-based capital requirements and certain changes to a comment period through October 22, 2012capital components and a projected effective datethe calculation of risk-weighted assets.

Effective January 1, 2013. After receipt of extensive comments and lobbying efforts on behalf of financial institutions, particularly smaller community banks, the federal bank regulatory agencies jointly issued a release on November 9, 2012 to delay the effective date of Basel III. No further effective date has been announced pending further review by the federal bank regulatory agencies. Therefore, it is uncertain when the proposed rules may become effective and whether the proposed rules will be implemented in the form proposed or modified in response to comments or subject to other changes that may have a material impact upon the rules as originally proposed and their application to2015, banking organizations like the Company and NVB.

As originally proposed, the rules includedNVB must comply with new minimum capital ratio requirements to be phased in between January 1, 20132015 and January 1, 2015,2019, which would consist of the following: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital to total risk weighted assets ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital to total risk weighted assets ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital to total risk weighted assets ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 capital to adjusted average total assets (“leverage”) ratio of 4%. Certain additional changes to the calculation of risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 capital components will affect the capital ratio requirements.

The proposed rules would also establishIn addition, a “capital conservation buffer,” is established which wouldwhen fully phased-in will require maintenance of a minimum of 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to total risk weighted assets in excess of the regulatory minimum capital ratio requirements described above. The 2.5% buffer would increase the minimum capital ratios to (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The new buffer requirement would be phased in between January 2016 and January 2019. An institution would be subject to limitations onor prohibition from paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, discretionary payments under Tier 1 instruments, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital ratio level fell below the buffer amount.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have also proposed changes to the prompt corrective action framework (described above under “FDICIA”) which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions if their capital ratios begin to show signs of weakness. As proposed, theseThese changes wouldwill take effect January 1, 2015 and wouldwill require insured depository institutions to meet the following increased capital ratio requirements in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (increased from 4%).

Assuming the Basel III interim final rules were in effect at December 31, 2013, and based upon the Company’s capital position at December 31, 2013, management believes that the Company and NVB would be in compliance with the minimum capital requirements, including the fully phased-in capital conservation buffer requirement, of the interim final rules.

Rating System. The Federal Financial Institution Examination Counsel (“FFIEC”) on December 13, 1996, approved an updated Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (“UFIRS”). In addition to the five components traditionally included in the so-called “CAMEL” rating system which has been used by bank examiners for a number of years to classify and evaluate the soundness of financial institutions (including capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings and liquidity), UFIRS includes for all bank regulatory examinations conducted on or after January 1, 1997, a new rating for a sixth category identified as sensitivity to market risk. Ratings in this category are intended to reflect the degree to which changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices or equity prices may adversely affect an institution’s earnings and capital. The revised rating system is identified as the “CAMELS” system.

CRA Compliance. Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) regulations evaluate banks’ lending to low and moderate income individuals and businesses across a four-point scale from “outstanding” to “substantial noncompliance,” and are a factor in regulatory review of applications to merge, establish new branches or form bank holding companies. In addition, any bank rated in “substantial noncompliance” with the CRA regulations may be subject to enforcement proceedings. NVB currently has a rating of “satisfactory” for CRA compliance.

Regulatory Compliance.The BankNVB is subject to periodic regulatory examinations in the ordinary course of business which are conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the California Department of Financial Institutions. Currently there remains pending a compliance examination of the Bank conductedBusiness Oversight (“DBO”). A supervisory agreement signed in 2010 by and among North Valley Bancorp, NVB and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to address certain examination issues was terminated effective as of April 16, 2012. Resolutions adopted by the NVB Board of Directors at the request of the DBO (formerly the California DFI) for similar reasons were also terminated in 2012. During the quarter ended September 30, 2013, in accordance with the terms of an agreement reached with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, NVB disbursed a total of $1,260,000 to certain affected parties, as agreed, to resolve criticisms raised in connection with a compliance examination conducted in 2010, and the Bank has not received the final report of examination. See “Regulatory Agreements” under Item 1A, Risk Factors, at page 19.NVB remains in compliance with that agreement.

Dividends. The Company’s ability to pay cash dividends is subject to restrictions set forth in the California General Corporation Law. Funds for payment of any cash dividends by the Company would be obtained from its investments as well as dividends from NVB. The ability of NVB to pay cash dividends is subject to restrictions set forth in the California Financial Code as well as restrictions established by the FDIC and the FRB. SeeItems 1A, “Risk Factors” and5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities,” below for further information regarding the payment of cash dividends by the Company and NVB.

The Board of Directors of the Company decides whether to declare and pay dividends after consideration of the Company’s earnings, financial condition, future capital needs, regulatory requirements and other factors as the Board of Directors may deem relevant. The Company suspended indefinitely the payment of quarterly cash dividends on its common stock beginning in 2009. This Board decision was made to strengthen and preserve the Company’s capital base in these challenging economic times. The payment of cash dividends remains suspended at present and the payment of dividends in the future will be determined by the Board of Directors after consideration of the Company’s earnings, financial condition, future capital funds, regulatory requirements and other factors as the Board of Directors may deem relevant.

The Company relies upon distributions from NVB in the form of cash dividends in order to pay dividends to its shareholders. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System generally prohibits a bank holding company from declaring or paying a cash dividend which would impose undue pressure on the capital of a subsidiary bank or would be funded only through borrowing or other arrangements that might adversely affect a bank holding company’s financial position. The Federal Reserve Board policy is that a bank holding company should not pay cash dividends on its common stock unless its net income is sufficient to fully fund each dividend and its prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with its capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.

Regulatory Agreement

The supervisory agreement signed on January 6, 2010 by and among North Valley Bancorp, North Valley Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was terminated, effective as of April 16, 2012. Among other matters, the agreement restricted the payment of dividends, including any payments on trust preferred securities. Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of NVB at the request of the California Department of Financial Institutions were also terminated, effective March 1, 2012.

The Patriot Act

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (the “Patriot Act”), which includes provisions pertaining to domestic security, surveillance procedures, border protection, and terrorism laws to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. Title III of the Patriot Act entitled, “International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act of 2001” includes amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act which expand the responsibilities of financial institutions in regard to anti-money laundering activities with particular emphasis upon international money laundering and terrorism financing activities through designated correspondent and private banking accounts.

Effective December 25, 2001, Section 313(a) of the Patriot Act prohibits any insured financial institution such as North Valley Bank, from providing correspondent accounts to foreign banks which do not have a physical presence in any country (designated as “shell banks”), subject to certain exceptions for regulated affiliates of foreign banks. Section 313(a) also requires financial institutions to take reasonable steps to ensure that foreign bank correspondent accounts are not being used to indirectly provide banking services to foreign shell banks, and Section 319(b) requires financial institutions to maintain records of the owners and agent for service of process of any such foreign banks with whom correspondent accounts have been established.

Effective July 23, 2002, Section 312 of the Patriot Act created a requirement for special due diligence for correspondent accounts and private banking accounts. Under Section 312, each financial institution that establishes, maintains, administers, or manages a private banking account or a correspondent account in the United States for a non-United States person, including a foreign individual visiting the United States, or a representative of a non-United States person shall establish appropriate, specific, and, where necessary, enhanced, due diligence policies, procedures, and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and record instances of money laundering through those accounts.

The Patriot Act contains various provisions in addition to Sections 313(a) and 312 that affect the operations of financial institutions by encouraging cooperation among financial institutions, regulatory authorities and law enforcement authorities with respect to individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. The Company and North Valley Bank are not currently aware of any account relationships between North Valley Bank and any foreign bank or other person or entity as described above under Sections 313(a) or 312 of the Patriot Act. Certain surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005, and actions to restrict the use of the Patriot Act surveillance provisions were filed by the ACLU and other organizations. On March 9, 2006, after temporary extensions of the Patriot Act, President Bush signed the “USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005” and the “USA Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006,” which reauthorized all expiring provisions of the Patriot Act  and extended certain provisions related to surveillance and production of business records until December 31, 2009. The extended deadline for those provisions was subsequently further extended at various times during 2010 and 2011 and on May 26, 2011, President Obama signed a further four-year extension of the surveillance provisions.

The effects which the Patriot Act and any additional legislation enacted by Congress may have upon financial institutions is uncertain; however, such legislation could increase compliance costs and thereby potentially may have an adverse effect upon the Company’s results of operations.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

On July 30, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), legislation designed to address certain issues of corporate governance and accountability. The key provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the Act include the following:

The Company’s securities are listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Consequently, in addition to the rules promulgated by the SEC pursuant to the Act, the Company must also comply with the listing standards applicable to all NASDAQ listed companies. The NASDAQ listing standards applicable to the Company include standards related to (i) director independence, (ii) executive session meetings of the board, (iii) requirements for audit, nominating and compensation committee charters, membership qualifications and procedures, (iv) shareholder approval of equity compensation arrangements, and (v) code of conduct requirements.

The Company has incurred and it is anticipated that it will continue to incur increased costs to comply with the Act and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act by the Securities and Exchange Commission, NASDAQ and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the Company or the issuance and listing of its securities. The Company does not currently anticipate that compliance with the Act and such rules and regulations will have a material adverse effect upon its financial position or results of its operations or its cash flows. Management is required to report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and an external attestation report of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting is required for the yearyears ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 but was not required for the yearsyear ended December 31, 2011 and 2010.2011. SeeItem 9A, “Controls and Procedures,” below.

The California Corporate Disclosure Act

Effective January 1, 2003, the California Corporate Disclosure Act (the “CCD Act”) required publicly traded corporations incorporated or qualified to do business in California to disclose information about their past history, auditors, directors and officers. Effective September 28, 2004, the CCD Act, as currently in effect and codified at California Corporations Code Section 1502.1, requires the Company to file with the California Secretary of State and disclose within 150 days after the end of its fiscal year certain information including the following:

The Company does not believe that complianceCompliance with the CCD Act willdid not have a material adverse effect upon its financial position or results of its operations or its cash flows.

Competition

At June 30, 2012,2013, commercial and savings banks in competition with the Company had 392396 banking offices in the counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Placer, Shasta, Sonoma, Trinity and Yolo where the Company operates. In those 392396 banking offices (which include the Company’s 22), there were $25.7$28.9 billion in total deposits of which the Company had an overall share of 3.0%2.7%. Additionally, the Company competes with thrifts and, to a lesser extent, credit unions, finance companies and other financial service providers for deposit and loan customers.

Larger banks may have a competitive advantage over the Company because of higher lending limits and major advertising and marketing campaigns. They also perform services, such as trust services and international banking which the Company is not authorized nor prepared to offer currently. The Company has arranged with correspondent banks and with others to provide some of these services for their customers. As of December 31, 2012,2013, NVB’s lending limit to any one borrower is $30,960,000$29,278,000 on a fully secured basis and $18,576,000$17,567,000 on an unsecured basis. These limits are adequate in most instances to compete for lending relationships within the markets we currently serve.

In order to compete with the major financial institutions in its primary service areas, the Company, through NVB, utilizes to the fullest extent possible, the flexibility which is accorded by its independent status. This includes an emphasis on specialized services, local promotional activity, and personal contacts by the officers, directors and employees of the Company. NVB also seeks to provide special services and programs for individuals in its primary service area who are employed in the agricultural, professional and business fields, such as loans for equipment, furniture, tools of the trade or expansion of practices or businesses.

Banking is a business that depends heavily on net interest income. Net interest income is defined as the difference between the interest rate paid to obtain deposits and other borrowings and the interest rate received on loans extended to customers and on securities held in the Bank’s investment portfolio. Commercial banks compete with savings and loan associations, credit unions, other financial institutions and other entities for funds. For instance, yields on corporate and government debt securities and other commercial paper affect the ability of commercial banks to attract and hold deposits. Commercial banks also compete for loans with savings and loan associations, credit unions, consumer finance companies, mortgage companies and other lending institutions.

Monetary and Fiscal Policies

The net interest income of the Company, and to a large extent, its earnings, are affected not only by general economic conditions, both domestic and foreign, but also by the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States as set by statutes and as implemented by federal agencies, particularly the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Board of Governors can and does implement national monetary policy, such as seeking to curb inflation and combat recession by its open market operations in United States government securities, adjustments in the amount of interest free reserves that banks and other financial institutions are required to maintain, and adjustments to the discount rates applicable to borrowing by banks from the Federal Reserve System. These activities influence the growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and also affect interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. The nature and timing of any future changes in monetary policies and their impact on the Company are not predictable.

Deposit Insurance

The FDIC is an independent federal agency that insures deposits of federally insured banks (such as North Valley Bank) and savings institutions up to prescribed limits through the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) temporarily raised the limit on federal deposit insurance coverage provided by the FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. The Dodd-Frank Act (described in more detail below) made the $250,000 amount permanent.

In addition, on November 9, 2010, the FDIC issued a final rule (implementing the Dodd-Frank Act) which provided unlimited deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction accounts until December 31, 2012. This Transaction Account Guarantee (“TAG”) program was not extended and expired December 31, 2012.

The amount of FDIC assessments paid by each DIF member institution is based on its risk profile as measured by regulatory capital ratios and other supervisory factors. Under the assessment rate system established in 2006, the FDIC increased the assessment rates (effective January 1, 2007) for most institutions from $0.05 to $0.07 per $100 of insured deposits and established a Designated Reserve Ratio (“DRR”) for the DIF during 2007 at 1.25% of insured deposits. Since 2008, due to higher levels of bank failures and the need to maintain a strong DIF, the FDIC has increased the assessment rates of insured institutions and may continue to do so in the future. On November 17, 2009, the FDIC amended its regulations and required all insured financial institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012 unless they were notified they were exempt from the prepayment. The FDIC exempted North Valley Bank from the requirement to prepay.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC revised the assessment rates, effective April 1, 2011, and the deposit insurance assessment base used to calculate premiums paid to DIF, substituting the average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity of an institution in place of deposits. Also pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC increased the DRR to 2.0 percent, effective January 1, 2011. For the year ended December 31, 2012,2013, the assessment rate for North Valley Bank averaged $0.11$0.09 per $100 in assessable deposits, compared to $0.18$0.11 per $100 in assessable deposits for the year ended December 31, 2011.2012. If economic conditions continue to impact financial institutions and there are additional bank and other financial institution failures, or if the FDIC otherwise determines, North Valley Bank may be required to pay higher FDIC premiums than the recently increased levels, which could have a material and adverse effect on the earnings of the Company.

Interstate Banking

Since 1996, California law implementing certain provisions of prior federal law has (1) permitted interstate merger transactions; (2) prohibited interstate branching through the acquisition of a branch business unit located in California without acquisition of the whole business unit of the California bank; and (3) prohibited interstate branching through de novo establishment of California branch offices. Initial entry into California by an out-of-state institution must be accomplished by acquisition of or merger with an existing whole bank, which has been in existence for at least five years. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes national and state banks to establish branches in other states to the same extent as a bank chartered by that state would be permitted to branch.

Glass-Steagall Act

The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (the “FSMA”) eliminated most of the remaining depression-era “firewalls” between banks, securities firms and insurance companies which was established by the Banking Act of 1933, also known as the Glass-Steagall Act (“Glass-Steagall). Glass-Steagall sought to insulate banks as depository institutions from the perceived risks of securities dealing and underwriting, and related activities. The FSMA repealed Section 20 of Glass-Steagall, which prohibited banks from affiliating with securities firms. Bank holding companies that can qualify as “financial holding companies” can now acquire securities firms or create them as subsidiaries, and securities firms can now acquire banks or start banking activities through a financial holding company. The FSMA includes provisions which permit national banks to conduct financial activities through a subsidiary that are permissible for a national bank to engage in directly, as well as certain activities authorized by statute, or that are financial in nature or incidental to financial activities to the same extent as permitted to a “financial holding company” or its affiliates. This liberalization of United States banking and financial services regulation applies both to domestic institutions and foreign institutions conducting business in the United States. Consequently, the common ownership of banks, securities firms and insurance firms is now possible, as is the conduct of commercial banking, merchant banking, investment management, securities underwriting and insurance within a single financial institution using a “financial holding company” structure authorized by the FSMA.

Prior to the FSMA, significant restrictions existed on the affiliation of banks with securities firms and on the direct conduct by banks of securities dealing and underwriting and related securities activities. Banks were also (with minor exceptions) prohibited from engaging in insurance activities or affiliating with insurers. The FSMA removed these restrictions and substantially eliminated the prohibitions under the Bank Holding Company Act on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. Bank holding companies, which qualify as financial holding companies through an application process, can now insure, guarantee, or indemnify against loss, harm, damage, illness, disability, or death; issue annuities; and act as a principal, agent, or broker regarding such insurance services.

In order for a commercial bank to affiliate with a securities firm or an insurance company pursuant to the FSMA, its bank holding company must qualify as a financial holding company. A bank holding company will qualify if (i) its banking subsidiaries are “well capitalized” and “well managed” and (ii) it files with the Board of Governors a certification to such effect and a declaration that it elects to become a financial holding company. The amendment of the Bank Holding Company Act now permits financial holding companies to engage in activities, and acquire companies engaged in activities, that are financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities. Financial holding companies are also permitted to engage in activities that are complementary to financial activities if the Board of Governors determines that the activity does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system in general. These standards expand upon the list of activities “closely related to banking” which to date have defined the permissible activities of bank holding companies under the Bank Holding Company Act. The Company has not determined whether (or when) to seek qualification as a financial holding company.

Volker Rule. On December 10, 2013, the federal banking agencies jointly issued a final rule implementing the so-called “Volker Rule” (set forth in Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act). The Volker Rule prohibits depository institutions, companies that control such institutions, bank holding companies, and the affiliates and subsidiaries of such banking entities, from engaging as principal for the trading account of the banking entity in any purchase or sale of one or more covered financial instruments (so-called “proprietary trading”) and imposes limitations upon retaining ownership interests in, sponsoring, investing in and transacting with certain investment funds, including hedge funds and private equity funds. Certain activities involving underwriting, risk mitigation hedging, and transactions on behalf of customers as a fiduciary or riskless principal are not prohibited proprietary trading, including purchases and sales of financial instruments which are either obligations of or issued or guaranteed by (i) the United States or agencies thereof; (ii) a State or political subdivision including municipal securities; or (iii) the FDIC. Notwithstanding these permissible activities, no such activities are permitted if they would (i) involve or result in a material conflict of interest between the banking entity and its clients, customers, or counterparties; (ii) result, directly or indirectly, in a material exposure by the banking entity to a high-risk asset or a high-risk trading strategy; or (iii) pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the banking entity or to the financial stability of the United States. The effective date of the final rule is delayed to July 21, 2015 in order to provide a transitional period for banking entities to conform their activities and policies to the final rule. Neither the Company nor NVB engages in activities prohibited by the Volker Rule and management does not expect the Volker Rule to have a material impact upon the Company or NVB.

One further effect of FSMA was to require that federal financial institution and securities regulatory agencies prescribe regulations to implement the policy that financial institutions must respect the privacy of their customers and protect the security and confidentiality of customers’ non-public personal information. These regulations will require, in general, that financial institutions (1) may not disclose non-public personal information of customers to non-affiliated third parties without notice to their customers, who must have opportunity to direct that such information not be disclosed; (2) may not disclose customer account numbers except to consumer reporting agencies; and (3) must give prior disclosure of their privacy policies before establishing new customer relationships.

Discharge of Materials into the Environment

Compliance with federal, state and local regulations regarding the discharge of materials into the environment may have a substantial effect on the capital expenditure, earnings and competitive position of the Company in the event of lender liability or environmental lawsuits. Under federal law, liability for environmental damage and the cost of cleanup may be imposed upon any person or entity that is an “owner” or “operator” of contaminated property. State law provisions, which were modeled after federal law, are substantially similar. Congress established an exemption under Federal law for lenders from “owner” and/or “operator” liability, which provides that “owner” and/or “operator” do not include “a person, who, without participating in the management of a vessel or facility, holds indicia of ownership primarily to protect his security interests in the vessel or facility.”

In the event that the Company was held liable as an owner or operator of a toxic property, it could be responsible for the entire cost of environmental damage and cleanup. Such an outcome could have a serious effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition depending upon the amount of liability assessed and the amount of cleanup required.

The Company takes reasonable steps to avoid loaning against property that may be contaminated. In order to identify possible hazards, the Company requires that all fee appraisals contain a reference to a visual assessment of hazardous waste by the appraiser. Further, on loans proposed to be secured by industrial, commercial or agricultural real estate, an Environmental Questionnaire must be completed by the borrower and any areas of concern addressed. Additionally, the borrower is required to review and sign a Hazardous Substance Certificate and Indemnity at the time the note is signed.

If the investigation reveals and if certain warning signs are discovered, but it cannot be easily ascertained, that an actual environmental hazard exists, the Company may require that the owner/buyer of the property, at his/her expense, have an Environmental Inspection performed by an insured, bonded environmental engineering firm acceptable to the Company.

Recent Regulatory Developments

In response to global credit and liquidity issues involving a number of financial institutions, the United States government, particularly the United States Department of the Treasury (the “U.S. Treasury”) and the Federal financial institution regulatory agencies, have taken a variety of extraordinary measures designed to restore confidence in the financial markets and to strengthen financial institutions, including capital injections, guarantees of bank liabilities and the acquisition of illiquid assets from banks.

TARP and the CPP. On October 3, 2008, the EESA was signed into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury was granted the authority to take a range of actions for the purpose of stabilizing and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets and has implemented several programs, including the purchase by the U.S. Treasury of certain troubled assets from financial institutions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program” (the “TARP”) and the direct purchase by the U.S. Treasury of equity securities of financial institutions under the Capital Purchase Program (the “CPP”). The final investment under the CPP was made in December 2009. The Company did not participate in the CPP.

Financial Stability Plan. On February 10, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced a Financial Stability Plan (the “FSP”) as a comprehensive approach to strengthening the financial system and addressing the credit crisis. The Plan included a Capital Assistance Program (the “CAP”) that was intended to serve as a bridge to raising private capital and to ensure sufficient capital to preserve or increase lending in a worse-than-expected economic deterioration. Eligibility to participate in the CAP was consistent with the criteria for QFI’s under the CPP. Eligible institutions with consolidated assets below $100 billion would be able to obtain capital under the CAP after a supervisory review. The CAP ended in November 2009 and the Company did not participate.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “ARRA”) was signed into law. Section 7001 of the ARRA amended Section 111 of the EESA in its entirety. While the U.S. Treasury must promulgate regulations to implement the restrictions and standards set forth in Section 7001, the ARRA, among other things, significantly expands the executive compensation restrictions previously imposed by the EESA. Such restrictions apply to any entity that has received or will receive financial assistance under the TARP, and shall generally continue to apply for as long as any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP, including preferred stock issued under the CPP, remains outstanding. These ARRA restrictions do not apply to any TARP recipient during such time when the federal government (i) only holds any warrants to purchase common stock of such recipient or (ii) holds no preferred stock or warrants to purchase common stock of such recipient. The Company is not subject to these restrictions because it did not participate in TARP.

The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010

On September 27, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (the “SBJ Act”), which, among other matters, authorizes the U.S. Treasury to buy up to $30 billion in preferred stock or subordinated debt issued by community banks (or their bank holding companies provided 90% of the funds received are downstreamed to the bank subsidiary) with assets less that $10 billion pursuant to the Small Business Lending Fund (the “SBLF”) created under the SBJ Act. Funds received as capital investments will qualify as Tier 1 capital. The SBLF investments are intended to increase the availability of credit for small businesses and thereby induce the creation of jobs in support of economic recovery.

The participating banks (or bank holding companies) will pay an annual dividend on the preferred stock or subordinated debt purchased by the U.S. Treasury in an amount which ranges between 5% and 1% during the initial measurement period of approximately two years determined by reducing the dividend rate 1% for every 2.5% increase in the bank’s small business lending up to a lending increase of 10%. The dividend rate will be adjusted quarterly during the initial period. If a participant’s lending activity does not increase in the initial period, the dividend rate will increase thereafter to 7%. After 4.5 years, the dividend rate increases to 9% until the SBLF funds are repaid.

On December 23, 2010, the federal banking agencies jointly issued guidance on underwriting standards for small business loans originated under the SBLF which require adherence to safe and sound credit standards and risk management processes. It is uncertain whether the SBLF will have the intended effect of creating jobs in sufficient numbers to positively impact the economic recovery. The Company did not participate in the SBLF.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). The Dodd-Frank Act is intended to restructure the regulation of the financial services sector by, among other things, (i) establishing a framework to identify systemic risks in the financial system implemented by a newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council and other federal banking agencies; (ii) expanding the resolution authority of the federal banking agencies over troubled financial institutions; (iii) authorizing changes to capital and liquidity requirements; (iv) changing deposit insurance assessments; and (v) enhancing regulatory supervision to improve the safety and soundness of the financial services sector. The Dodd-Frank Act is expected to have a significant impact upon our business as its provisions are implemented over time. Below is a summary of certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act which, directly or indirectly, may affect us.

Many of the requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over an extended period of time. Therefore, the nature and extent of regulations that will be issued by various regulatory agencies and the impact such regulations will have on the operations of financial institutions such as oursthe Company is unclear. Such regulations resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage ratio requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes in order to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements.

Future Legislation and Regulation

Certain legislative and regulatory proposals that could affect the Company and banking business in general are periodically introduced before the United States Congress, the California State Legislature and federal and state government agencies. It is not known to what extent, if any, legislative proposals will be enacted and what effect such legislation would have on the structure, regulation and competitive relationships of financial institutions. It is likely, however, that such legislation could subject the Company and NVB to increased regulation, disclosure and reporting requirements and increase competition and the Company’s cost of doing business.

In addition to legislative changes, the various federal and state financial institution regulatory agencies frequently propose rules and regulations to implement and enforce already existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form any such rules or regulations will be enacted or the effect that such and regulations may have on the Company and NVB.

Employees

At December 31, 2012,2013, the Company had approximately 329319 employees, (which includes 316297 full-time equivalent employees). None of the Company’s employees are represented by a labor union, and management considers its relations with employees to be good.

Website Access

Information on the Company and its subsidiary NVB may be obtained from the Company’s website www.novb.com. Copies of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments thereto are available free of charge on the website as soon as they are published by the SEC through a link to the Edgar reporting system maintained by the SEC. Simply select the “NOVB Investors” menu item, then click on “Shareholder Relations” and then select the “SEC Filings” link. Also made available through the “SEC Filings” link are the Section 16 reports of ownership and changes in ownership of the Company’s common stock which are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the directors and executive officers of the Company and by any persons who own more than ten percent of the outstanding shares of such stock. Information on the Company website is not incorporated by reference into this report.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

In addition to the risks associated with the business of banking generally, as described above under Item 1 “Description of Business”, the Company’s business, financial condition, operating results, future prospects and stock price can be adversely impacted by certain risk factors, as set forth below, any one of which could cause the Company’s actual results to vary materially from recent results or from the Company’s anticipated future results.

Termination of our Merger Agreement with TriCo could negatively affect the Company and NVB. On January 21, 2014, the Company and TriCo Bancshares (“TriCo”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the “Merger Agreement”) providing for the merger of the Company with and into TriCo (the “Merger”). If the Merger Agreement is terminated or the Merger is not consummated for any reason, we may suffer adverse consequences, such as: (1) the market price of our common stock may decline to the extent that the market price prior to termination reflects a market assumption that the Merger will be completed; (2) recognizing substantial expenses incurred in connection with the negotiation and completion of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement without realizing the expected benefits of the Merger; (3) our ability to attract, retain and motivate key personnel, depositors and borrowers as such personnel, depositors and borrowers may experience uncertainty about their future roles following the consummation of the Merger; (4) competitors may target our existing customers by highlighting potential uncertainties and integration difficulties that may result from the Merger; (5) the Merger Agreement restricts us from taking certain actions without TriCo’s consent while the Merger is pending which may, among other matters, prevent us from pursuing certain transactions or making other changes to our business prior to consummation of the Merger or termination of the Merger Agreement; and (6) we have a small number of key personnel and the pursuit of the Merger and the preparation for the integration may place a burden on management and internal resources.

The consideration to be paid in the Merger is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in the business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition or results of operations of the Company or TriCo, or in the event of any change in our stock price or TriCo’s stock price.The Merger Agreement provides that the merger consideration (i.e., the number of shares of TriCo common stock that will be issued to the holders of the Company’s common stock) is fixed and will not be adjusted for changes in the business, assets, liabilities, prospects, outlook, financial condition or results of operations of the Company or TriCo, or changes in the market price of, analyst estimates of, or projections relating to, the Company’s common stock or TriCo’s common stock.

Extensive Regulation of Banking. The operations of the Company and its subsidiary, North Valley Bank, are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities and are subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on part or all of such operations. The Company and North Valley Bank believe they are in substantial compliance in all material respects with laws, rules and regulations applicable to the conduct of their banking business. Because the banking business is highly regulated, the laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Company are subject to regular modification and change. These laws, rules and regulations, or any other laws, rules or regulations adopted in the future, could make compliance more difficult or expensive, restrict the Company’s ability to originate, broker or sell loans, further limit or restrict the amount of commissions, interest or other charges earned on loans originated or sold by the Company, or otherwise adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, or future prospects. The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law on July 21, 2010, continues to have a broad impact on the financial services sector, including significant regulatory and compliance changes. Many of the Dodd-Frank Act requirements are being implemented over time and, given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which they will be implemented by the various regulatory agencies, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on the Company’s operations is not clear. Changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of business activities, require changes to certain business practices, impose more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Competition. An economy characterized by a decline in real estate values, high unemployment and general uncertainty has increased competition for good quality loans among depository institutions operating in the Company’s market areas. Ultimately, the Company and North Valley Bank may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors. Many competitors offer the banking services that are offered by North Valley Bank. These competitors include national and super-regional banks, finance companies, investment banking and brokerage firms, credit unions, government-assisted farm credit programs, other community banks and technology-oriented financial institutions offering online services. In particular, North Valley Bank’s competitors include several major financial companies whose greater resources may afford them a marketplace advantage by enabling them to maintain numerous banking locations and mount extensive promotional and advertising campaigns. Additionally, banks and other financial institutions with larger capitalization and financial intermediaries not subject to bank regulatory restrictions have larger lending limits and are thereby able to serve the credit needs of larger customers. Areas of competition include interest rates for loans and deposits, efforts to obtain deposits, and range and quality of products and services provided, including new technology-driven products and services. Technological innovation continues to contribute to greater competition in domestic and international financial services markets as technological advances, such as Internet-based banking services that cross traditional geographic bounds, enable more companies to provide financial services. If North Valley Bank is unable to attract and retain banking customers, it may be unable to continue its level of loans and deposits, which may adversely affect its and the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and future prospects.

Dependence on Key Employees.The Company and North Valley Bank are dependent on the successful recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel. Our ability to implement our business strategies is closely tied to the strengths of our chief executive officer and other key officers. Our key officers have extensive experience in the banking industry which is not easily replaced. Business banking, one of the Company’s principal lines of business, is dependent on relationship banking, in which Company personnel develop professional relationships with small business owners and officers of larger business customers who are responsible for the financial management of the companies they represent. If these employees were to leave the Company and become employed by a competing bank, the Company could potentially lose business customers. In addition, the Company relies on its customer service staff to effectively serve the needs of its consumer customers. The Company very actively recruits for all open positions and management believes that its employee relations are good.

Growth Strategy. The Company has pursued and continues to pursue a growth strategy which depends primarily on generating an increasing level of loans and deposits at acceptable risk levels. The Company may not be able to sustain this growth strategy without establishing new branches or new products. Therefore, the Company may expand in its current markets by opening or acquiring branch offices or may expand into new markets or make strategic acquisitions of other financial institutions or branch offices. This expansion may require significant investments in equipment, technology, personnel and site locations. Our success in implementing our growth strategy may not be possible without corresponding increases in our noninterest expenses. In addition, growth through acquisitions represents a component of our business strategy. The need to integrate the operations and personnel of acquired banks and branches may not always be successfully accomplished. Any inability to improve operating performance through integration and/or merger of operations, functions or banks could increase expenses and impact the Company’s performance.

Governmental Fiscal and Monetary Policies. The business of banking is affected significantly by the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government and its agencies. Such policies are beyond the control of the Company. The Company is particularly affected by the policies established by the Board of Governors in relation to the supply of money and credit in the United States. The instruments of monetary policy available to the Board of Governors can be used in varying degrees and combinations to directly affect the availability of bank loans and deposits, as well as the interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits, and this can and does have a material effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

Geographic Concentration. All of the business of the Company is located in the State of California and the banking offices of the Company are located in the Northern California Counties of Shasta, Trinity, Humboldt, Del Norte, Yolo, Sonoma, Placer and Mendocino. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows are subject to changes in the economic conditions in those counties. Our success depends upon the business activity, population, employment and income levels, deposits and real estate activity in these markets. Adverse economic conditions and unemployment trends in those markets are affecting the ability of our customers to repay their loans which has reduced our growth rate and impacted our financial condition and results of operations. Economic conditions in the State of California are subject to various uncertainties at this time, including the budgetary and fiscal difficulties facing the California State Government. Conditions in the California economy may deteriorate and such deterioration would adversely affect the Company.

Commercial Loans.As of December 31, 2012,2013, approximately 9.4%9.3% of our loan portfolio consisted of commercial business loans. The credit risk for commercial loans is a result of several factors, including the concentration of principal in a limited number of loans and borrowers, the mobility of collateral, the effect of general economic conditions and the increased difficulty of evaluating and monitoring these types of loans. In addition, unlike residential mortgage loans, which generally are made on the basis of the borrower’s ability to make repayment from his or her employment and other income and which are secured by real property whose value tends to be more easily ascertainable, commercial business loans typically are made on the basis of the borrower’s ability to make repayment from the cash flow of the borrower’s business. As a result, the availability of funds for the repayment of commercial business loans may be substantially dependent on the success of the business itself and the general economic environment. If the cash flow from business operations is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired.

Real Estate Values.A large portion of the loan portfolio of the Company is dependent on real estate. At December 31, 2012,2013, real estate served as the principal source of collateral with respect to approximately 79.9%81.9% of the Company’s loan portfolio. A continuing substantial decline in the economy in general, or a continuing decline in real estate values in the Company’s primary operating market areas in particular, could have an adverse effect on the demand for new loans, the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, the value of real estate and other collateral securing loans and the value of mortgage-backed securities included in the available-for-sale investment portfolio, as well as the Company’s financial condition and results of operations in general and the market value for Company common stock. Acts of nature, including fires, earthquakes and floods, which may cause uninsured damage and other loss of value to real estate that secures these loans, may also negatively impact the Company’s financial condition. In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property, we generally require an appraisal of the property. However, an appraisal is only an estimate of the value of the property at the time the appraisal is made. If the appraisal does not reflect the amount that may be obtained upon any sale or foreclosure of the property, we may not realize the amount equal to the indebtedness secured by the property in the event of foreclosure.

Construction and Development Loans. At December 31, 2012,2013, real estate construction loans totaled $23.0$27.4 million, or 4.7%5.4% of our total loan portfolio. Residential construction loans, including land acquisition and development, totaled $14.9$20.3 million or 64.6%74.0% of the Company’s real estate construction portfolio, and 3.0%4.0% of the total loan portfolio. Construction, land acquisition and development lending involve additional risks because funds are advanced on the security of the project, which is of uncertain value prior to its completion. Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs, as well as the market value of the completed project and the effects of governmental regulation on real property, it is relatively difficult to evaluate accurately the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan-to-value ratio. As a result, speculative construction loans often involve the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the completion of the project and the ability of the borrower to sell the property, rather than the ability of the borrower or the guarantor to repay the principal and interest. If our appraisal of the value of the completed project proves to be overstated, we may have inadequate security for the repayment of the loan upon completion of construction of the project. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to or at completion due to a default, we may not be able to recover all of the unpaid balance of, and accrued interest on, the loan, as well as related foreclosure and holding costs. In addition, we may be required to fund additional amounts to complete the project and may have to hold the property for an unspecified period of time.

Other Real Estate Owned (“OREO”). Real estate acquired through, or in lieu of, loan foreclosures is expected to be sold and is recorded at its fair value less estimated costs to sell. The amount, if any, by which the recorded amount of the loan exceeds the fair value (less estimated costs to sell) are charged to the allowance for loan losses, if necessary. The Company’s earnings could be materially and adversely affected by various expenses associated with OREO, including personnel costs, insurance and taxes, completion and repair costs, valuation adjustments, and other expenses associated with property ownership. Also, any further decrease in market prices of real estate in our market areas may lead to additional OREO write downs, with a corresponding expense in our income statement. The Company’s OREO totaled $3,454,000, $22,423,000 $20,106,000 and $25,784,000$20,106,000 at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, and 2010, respectively.

Allowance for Loan Losses.Like all financial institutions, the Company maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for loan defaults and non-performance, but the allowance for loan losses may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses. In addition, future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect the Company and therefore the Company’s operating results. The Company’s allowance for loan losses is based on prior experience, as well as an evaluation of the risks in the current portfolio. The amount of future losses is susceptible to changes in economic, operating and other conditions, including changes in interest rates that may be beyond the Company’s control, and these losses may exceed current estimates. Federal regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review the Company’s loans and allowance for loan losses. We believe that the Company’s allowance for loan losses is adequate to cover current losses, but a continuing decline in real estate values combined with higher rates of unemployment or under-employment in our operating markets could result in an increase in classified loans and the allowance for loan losses. These occurrences could materially and adversely affect the Company’s earnings.

Nonperforming Loans. In recent years, we have experienced significant declinessome improvement in the performance of loans, particularly construction, development and land loans, and unsecured commercial and consumer loans.loans after several years of deterioration. The Company’s nonperforming loans (defined as nonaccrual loans and loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest) were approximately $5,093,000, $5,835,000 $18,411,000 and $20,065,000$18,411,000 at December 31, 2013, 2012 2011 and 2010,2011, respectively. Nonperforming loans as a percentage of the Company’s total loans were 1.00%, 1.19%, 4.04% and 3.91%4.04% at December 31, 2013, 2012 2011 and, 2010,2011, respectively. Nonperforming loans adversely affect the Company’s net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans; the costs of reappraising adversely classified assets, legal and other costs associated with loan collections, and other operating costs related to foreclosed assets have increased our noninterest expense; and upon taking collateral through foreclosure or similar proceedings, we are required to mark the related loan to the then fair value of the collateral, less estimated selling costs, which may result in a loss. Until economic and market conditions improve, we expect that our level of nonperforming loans will continue to impact our earnings, and could have a substantial adverse impact if conditions deteriorate further.

Regulatory Agreements. The supervisory agreement signed on January 6, 2010 by and among North Valley Bancorp, North Valley Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco was terminated, effective as of April 16, 2012, and resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of NVB at the request of the California Department of Financial Institutions were previously terminated, effective March 1, 2012. However, North Valley Bank has not received a final report of examination for a compliance examination of the Bank conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2010 and the Bank has established a reserve for the anticipated settlement of criticisms expected to be contained in the report, when received. See the discussion under “Noninterest Expense” at page 34 below.

The Effects of Legislation in Response to Current Credit Conditions. Legislation passed at the federal level and/or by the State of California in response to current conditions affecting credit markets could cause the Company to experience higher loan losses if such legislation reduces the amount that borrowers are otherwise contractually required to pay under existing loan contracts with North Valley Bank. Such legislation could also result in the imposition of limitations upon North Valley Bank'sBank’s ability to foreclose on property or other collateral or make foreclosure less economically feasible. Such events could result in increased loan losses and require a material increase in the allowance for loan losses and thereby adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, profitability and stock price.

Dilution of Common Stock.Shares of the Company’s common stock may be issued in public or private capital raising transactions, future acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic alliances, or for other corporate purchases approved by the Board of Directors. On April 22, 2010, the Company raised $40 million (in gross proceeds) in a private placement of 40,000 shares of its Mandatorily Convertible Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (“Series A Preferred Stock”) to a limited number of institutional and other accredited investors, including certain directors and executive officers of the Company. The shares of Series A Preferred Stock were convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock and, on July 21, 2010, with the prior approval of the Company shareholders, all 40,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock were converted into a 26,666,646 shares of Company common stock (resulting in a total of 34,162,463 shares of common stock outstanding on such date). Shares of the Company’s common stock remaining eligible for future sale could have a further dilutive effect on the market for the common stock and could adversely affect the market price. The Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Company currently authorize the issuance of 60,000,000 shares of common stock, of which 6,835,1926,836,463 were outstanding at December 31, 20122013 (after a one-for-five reverse stock split effective on December 28, 2010). Pursuant to Company stock option plans, at December 31, 2012,2013, employees and directors of the Company had outstanding options to purchase 248,822354,710 shares of common stock. As of December 31, 2012,2013, there were 220,213241,635 shares of common stock available for grants under the Company’s stock option plans.

Operations Risks.The Company is subject to a variety of operations risks, including, but not limited to, reputational risk, legal risk and compliance risk, data processing system failures and errors, operational errors resulting from faulty or disabled computer or telecommunications systems and the risk of fraud or theft by employees or outsiders, any of which may adversely affect our business and results of operations. The Company maintains a system of internal controls to mitigate against such occurrences and maintains insurance coverage for such risks, but should such an event occur that is not prevented or detected by the Company’s internal controls, uninsured or in excess of applicable insurance limits, it could have a significant adverse impact on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations. The Bank is subject to periodic regulatory examinations in the ordinary course of business which are conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the California Department of Financial Institutions.DBO.

Business Confidence and International Uncertainty.The terrorist actions on September 11, 2001, and thereafter, plus military actions taken by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, have had significant adverse effects upon the United States economy. Whether terrorist activities in the future and the actions taken by the United States and its allies in combating terrorism on a worldwide basis will adversely impact the Company, and the extent of such impact, is uncertain. However, such events have had and may continue to have an adverse effect on the United States economy and by extension, the California economy including business activity in the Company’s market areas. Further economic deterioration and a loss of business confidence, whether at the national, state or local level, could adversely affect the Company’s future results of operations by, among other matters, reducing the demand for loans and other products and services offered by the Company, increasing nonperforming loans and the amounts required to be reserved for loan losses, reducing the value of collateral held as security for the Company’s loans, and causing a decline in the Company’s stock price.

The Effects of Changes to FDIC Insurance Coverage Limits and Assessments.FDIC insurance assessments are uncertain and increased premiums may adversely affect the Company’s earnings. The FDIC charges insured financial institutions premiums to maintain the DIF. Current economic conditions have increased expectations for additional bank closures and, in such event, the FDIC would take control of the failed banks and guarantee payment of deposits up to applicable insured limits from the DIF. Insurance premium assessments to insured financial institutions may increase as necessary to maintain adequate funding of the DIF. The EESA of 2008 included a provision for an increase in the amount of deposits insured by the FDIC to $250,000, which was scheduled to remain in effect through December 31, 2013. With enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act on July 21, 2010, the $250,000 per depositor insurance limit was made permanent. The TAG program which provided unlimited deposit insurance for noninterestnon-interest bearing transaction accounts was not extended and it expired on December 31, 2012. It is not clear how depositors will regard the increase in insurance coverage to $250,000 in the future. Despite the increase, some depositors may reduce the amount of deposits held at North Valley Bank if concerns regarding bank failures persist, which could affect the level and composition of North Valley Bank'sBank’s deposit portfolio and thereby directly impact its funding costs and net interest margin. North Valley Bank’s funding costs may also be adversely affected in the event that activities of the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Department of the Treasury to provide liquidity for the banking system and improvement in capital markets are curtailed or are unsuccessful. Such events could reduce liquidity in the markets, thereby increasing funding costs to North Valley Bank or reducing the availability of funds to finance its existing operations and thereby adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, financial condition, future prospects, profitability and stock price.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

The Company’s head office is located at 300 Park Marina Circle, Redding, California 96001. As of December 31, 2012,2013, the Bank had branch offices in Shasta County (ten branches), Trinity County (two branches), Humboldt County (five branches), Del Norte County (one branch), Yolo County (one branch), Sonoma County (one branch), Placer County (one branch) and Mendocino County (one branch).

The Bank owns eleven branch office locations and two non branch locations. The Bank leases eleven branch office locations, one loan production office, one administrative building, one non branch location and one storage warehouse facility. Expiration dates of the Bank’s leases range from October 2013 to September 2023. Certain properties currently leased have renewal options which could extend the use of the facility for additional specified terms, and provisions for rental increases, principally for changes in the cost of living index, property taxes and maintenance. In the opinion of management, all properties are adequately covered by insurance and existing facilities are considered adequate for present and anticipated future use.

The following table summarizes the Company’s premises, both owned and leased:

As of December 31, 2012,2013, the Bank’s investment in premises and equipment, net of depreciation, totaled $9,181,000.$7,833,000. See Notes 5 and 15Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

From time to time, the Company, through NVB, acquires real property through foreclosure of defaulted loans. The policy of the Company is not to use or permanently retain any such properties but to resell them when practicable.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Company or against any of its property. The Company, because of the nature of its business, is generally subject to various legal actions, threatened or filed, which involve ordinary, routine litigation incidental to its business. Although the amount of the ultimate exposure, if any, cannot be determined at this time, the Company, based on the advice of counsel, does not expect that the final outcome of threatened or filed suits will have a materially adverse effect on its consolidated financial position.

On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit titledJohn Solak v. North Valley Bancorp, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta. TriCo Bancshares and all of the individuals serving as Directors of the Company are also named as defendants. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization signed between the Company and TriCo Bancshares on January 21, 2014. The Company and the Directors have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company and its legal counsel believe the complaint’s claims are without merit. The resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations, though no assurance can be given in this regard.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

None.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market Information

The North Valley Bancorp common stock is quoted and trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “NOVB.” The shares were first listed with the NASDAQ Stock Market in April 1998. The table below summarizes the Common Stock high and low trading prices during the two-year period ended December 31, 20122013 as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. The Company did not declare any cash dividends on its common stock for the years ended 20122013 and 2011.2012.

Holders

The Company had approximately 366447 shareholders of record as of December 31, 2012.2013.

Dividends

As a California corporation, the Company’s ability to pay cash dividends is subject to restrictions set forth in the California General Corporation Law (the “Corporation Law”). The Corporation Law provides that neither a corporation nor any of its subsidiaries shall make a distribution to the corporation’s shareholders unless the board of directors has determined in good faith either of the following: (1) the amount of retained earnings of the corporation immediately prior to the distribution equals or exceeds the sum of (A) the amount of the proposed distribution plus (B) the preferential dividends arrears amount; or (2) immediately after the distribution, the value of the corporation’s assets would equal or exceed the sum of its total liabilities plus the preferential rights amount. The good faith determination of the board of directors may be based upon (1) financial statements prepared on the basis of reasonable accounting practices and principles, (2) a fair valuation, or (3) any other method reasonable under the circumstances; provided, that a distribution may not be made if the corporation or subsidiary making the distribution is, or is likely to be, unable to meet its liabilities (except those whose payment is otherwise adequately provided for) as they mature. The term “preferential dividends arrears amount” means the amount, if any, of cumulative dividends in arrears on all shares having a preference with respect to payment of dividends over the class or series to which the applicable distribution is being made, provided that if the articles of incorporation provide that a distribution can be made without regard to preferential dividends arrears amount, then the preferential dividends arrears amount shall be zero. The term “preferential rights amount” means the amount that would be needed if the corporation were to be dissolved at the time of the distribution to satisfy the preferential rights, including accrued but unpaid dividends, of other shareholders upon dissolution that are superior to the rights of the shareholders receiving the distribution, provided that if the articles of incorporation provide that a distribution can be made without regard to any preferential rights, then the preferential rights amount shall be zero.

Funds for payment of any cash dividends by the Company would be obtained from its investments as well as dividends and/or management fees from NVB. As a California banking corporation, the ability of NVB to pay cash dividends and/or management fees is subject to restrictions set forth in the California Financial Code (the “Financial Code”). The Financial Code provides that a bank may not make a cash distribution to its shareholders in excess of the lesser of (a) the bank'sbank’s retained earnings; or (b) the bank'sbank’s net income for its last three fiscal years, less the amount of any distributions made by the bank or by any majority-owned subsidiary of the bank to the shareholders of the bank during such period. However, a bank may, with the approval of the Commissioner, make a distribution to its shareholders in an amount not exceeding the greater of (a) its retained earnings; (b) its net income for its last fiscal year; or (c) its net income for its current fiscal year. In the event that the Commissioner determines that the stockholders’ equity of a bank is inadequate or that the making of a distribution by the bank would be unsafe or unsound, the Commissioner may order the bank to refrain from making a proposed distribution.

The Board of Governors generally prohibits a bank holding company from declaring or paying a cash dividend which would impose undue pressure on the capital of subsidiary banks or would be funded only through borrowing or other arrangements that might adversely affect a bank holding company’s financial position. The policy of the Board of Governors is that a bank holding company should not continue its existing rate of cash dividends on its common stock unless its net income is sufficient to fully fund each dividend and its prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with its capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Such policy also applies to the payment of cash dividends by state member banks such as NVB.

The FDIC may also restrict the payment of dividends by a subsidiary bank if such payment would be deemed unsafe or unsound or if after the payment of such dividends, the bank would be included in one of the “undercapitalized” categories for capital adequacy purposes pursuant to the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991.

The Board of Directors of the Company decides whether to declare and pay dividends after consideration of the Company’s earnings, financial condition, future capital needs, regulatory requirements and other factors as the Board of Directors may deem relevant. On January 29, 2009, primarily as a result of the Company’s operating performance for 2008, the Board of Directors determined that it was in the best interest of the Company to suspend indefinitely the payment of quarterly cash dividends on its common stock, beginning in 2009. As a result, no cash dividends were declared or paid during 2013, 2012 2011 and 2010.2011.

SeeNote 1716 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information regarding the payment of dividends, including information regarding certain limitations on the payment of dividends or distributions by the Company or NVB.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares our cumulative total shareholder return since December 31, 20072008 with the NASDAQ Composite Index, the SNL $500 million - $1 billion Bank Index, and SNL Western Bank Index. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in our common stock and each index (including reinvestment of dividends) was $100.00 on December 31, 2007.