Employees

As of December 31, 2011, we had a total of 2,255 full-time equivalent employees. None of the employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement and management believes its relations with employees to be good. Umpqua Bank was named #69 onFortune magazine’s 2012 list of “100 Best Companies to Work For”, #25 on the 2011 list, #23 on the 2010 list, and #34 on the 2009 list. Information regarding employment agreements with our executive officers is contained in Item 11 below, which item is incorporated by reference to our proxy statement for the 2012 annual meeting of shareholders.

Government Policies

The operations of our subsidiaries are affected by state and federal legislative changes and by policies of various regulatory authorities. These policies include, for example, statutory maximum legal lending rates, domestic monetary policies of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, United States fiscal policy, and capital adequacy and liquidity constraints imposed by federal and state regulatory agencies. Congress enacted theEmergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), which granted significant authority to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) to invest in financial institutions, guarantee debt, buy troubled assets and take other action designed to stabilize financial markets. In November 2008, the Company closed a transaction under the Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”) in which the Company issued 214,181 shares of cumulative preferred stock to the Treasury and issued a warrant to purchase 2,221,795 (reduced in 2009 to 1,110,898) shares of common stock at $14.46 per share in exchange for $214,181,000. Agreements executed in connection with the CPP transaction placed restrictions on compensation payable to senior executive officers and provided that the Company may not declare dividends that exceed $0.19 per common share per quarter without Treasury’s prior written consent. Federal and state governments have been actively responding to the financial market crisis that unfolded in 2008 and legislative and regulatory initiatives are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In connection with the Company’s public offering in February 2010, Umpqua repurchased the preferred stock from the Treasury and the warrant in March 2010. See Note 22 of theNotes to the Consolidated Financial Statement in Item 8 below.

Supervision and Regulation

General.    We are extensively regulated under federal and state law. These laws and regulations are generally intended to protect depositors and customers, not shareholders. To the extent that the following information describes statutory or regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statute or regulation. Any change in applicable laws or regulations may have a material effect on our business and prospects. Our operations may be affected by legislative changes and by the policies of various regulatory authorities. We cannot accurately predict the nature or the extent of the effects on our business and earnings that fiscal or monetary policies, or new federal or state legislation may have in the future. Umpqua is subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, both as administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. As a listed company on NASDAQ, Umpqua is subject to NASDAQ rules for listed companies.

Holding Company Regulation.    We are a registered financial holding company under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”), and are subject to the supervision of, and regulation by, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). As a financial holding company, we are examined by and file reports with the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve expects a bank holding company to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary bank and, under appropriate circumstances, to commit resources to support the subsidiary bank.

Financial holding companies are bank holding companies that satisfy certain criteria and are permitted to engage in activities that traditional bank holding companies are not. The qualifications and permitted activities of financial holdings companies are described below under “Regulatory Structure of the Financial Services Industry.”

Federal and State Bank Regulation.    Umpqua Bank, as a state chartered bank with deposits insured by the FDIC, is primarily subject to the supervision and regulation of the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services Division of Finance and Corporate Securities, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, the California Department of Financial Institutions, the Nevada Division of Financial Institutions , the FDIC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). These agencies may prohibit the Bank from engaging in what they believe constitute unsafe or unsound banking practices. Our primary state regulator (the State of Oregon) regularly examines the Bank or participates in joint examinations with the FDIC.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) requires that, in connection with examinations of financial institutions within its jurisdiction, the FDIC evaluate the record of the financial institutions in meeting the credit needs of their local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of those institutions. These factors are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or new facility. A less than “Satisfactory” rating would result in the suspension of any growth of the Bank through acquisitions or opening de novo branches until the rating is improved. As of the most recent CRA examination in April 2010, the Bank’s CRA rating was “Satisfactory.”

Banks are also subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act on extensions of credit to executive officers, directors, principal shareholders or any related interest of such persons. Extensions of credit must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral as, and follow credit underwriting procedures that are not less stringent than, those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with the bank, and must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features. Banks are also subject to certain lending limits and restrictions on overdrafts to such persons. A violation of these restrictions may result in the assessment of substantial civil monetary penalties on the affected bank or any officer, director, employee, agent or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of that bank, the imposition of a cease and desist order, and other regulatory sanctions.

The Federal Reserve Act and related Regulation W limit the amount of certain loan and investment transactions between the Bank and its affiliates, require certain levels of collateral for such loans, and limit the amount of advances to third parties that may be collateralized by the securities of Umpqua or its subsidiaries. Regulation W requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving nonaffiliated companies or, in the absence of comparable transactions, on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that in good faith would be offered to or would apply to nonaffiliated companies. Umpqua and its subsidiaries have adopted an Affiliate Transactions Policy and have entered into various affiliate agreements in compliance with Regulation W.

The Federal Reserve and the FDIC have adopted non-capital safety and soundness standards for institutions. These standards cover internal controls, information and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, and standards for asset quality, earnings and stock valuation. An institution that fails to meet these standards must develop a plan acceptable to the agency, specifying the steps that it will take to meet the standards. Failure to submit or implement such a plan may subject the institution to regulatory sanctions. We believe that the Bank is in compliance with these standards.

Federal Deposit Insurance.    Substantially all deposits with Umpqua Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. The FDIC uses a risk-based assessment system that imposes insurance premiums based upon a bank’s capital level and supervisory ratings. The base assessment rates under the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (“Reform Act”), enacted in February 2006, ranged from $0.02 to $0.40 per $100 of deposits annually. The FDIC could increase or decrease the assessment rate schedule five basis points (annualized) higher or lower than the base rates in order to manage the DIF to prescribed statutory target levels. For 2007 the effective assessment amounts were $0.03 above the base rate amounts. Assessment rates for well managed, well capitalized institutions ranged from $0.05 to $0.07 per $100 of deposits annually. The Bank’s assessment rate for 2008 fell within this range. In 2007, the FDIC issued one-time assessment credits that could be used to offset this expense. The Bank’s credit was fully utilized in 2007 and covered the majority of that year’s assessment. The Bank did not have any remaining credit to offset assessments in 2008.

In December 2008, the FDIC adopted a rule that amended the system for risk-based assessments and changed assessment rates in attempt to restore targeted reserve ratios in the DIF. Effective January 1, 2009, the risk-based assessment rates were uniformly raised by seven basis points (annualized). On February 27, 2009, the FDIC further modified the risk-based assessment system, effective April 1, 2009, to effectively require larger risk institutions to pay a larger share of the assessment. Characteristics of larger risk institutions include a significant reliance on secured liabilities or brokered deposits, particularly when combined with rapid asset growth. The rule also provided incentives for institutions to hold long-term unsecured debt

and, for smaller institutions, high levels of Tier 1 capital. The initial base assessment rates range from $0.12 to $0.45 per $100 of deposits annually. After potential adjustments related to unsecured debt, secured liabilities and brokered deposit balances, the final total assessment rates range from $0.07 to $0.775 per $100 of deposits annually. Initial base assessment rates for well managed, well capitalized institutions ranged from $0.12 to $0.16 per $100 of deposits annually. The Bank’s assessment rate for 2010 fell within this range.

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new DIF restoration plan to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 30, 2020, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the new restoration plan, the FDIC will forego the uniform three-basis point increase in initial assessment rates schedules for January 1, 2011 and maintain the current schedule of assessment rates. At least semi-annually, the FDIC will update its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, increase or decrease assessment rates. On February 7, 2011, the FDIC adopted a final rule modifying the risk-based assessment system from a domestic deposit base to a scorecard based assessment system, effective April 1, 2011. Effective as of April 1, 2011, the Bank was categorized as a large institution as the Bank has more than $10 billion in assets. The initial base assessment rates range from five to 35 basis points. After potential adjustments related to unsecured debt and brokered deposit balances, the final total assessment rates range from 2.5 to 45 basis points. Initial base assessment rates for large institutions ranged from five to 35 basis points. The Bank’s assessment rate for 2011 fell at the low end of this range. Further increases in the assessment rate could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, depending upon the amount of the increase.

In 2006, the Reform Act increased the deposit insurance limit for certain retirement plan deposit accounts from $100,000 to $250,000. The basic insurance limit for other deposits, including individuals, joint account holders, businesses, government entities, and trusts, remained at $100,000. The Reform Act also provided for the merger of the two deposit insurance funds administered by the FDIC, the Bank Insurance Fund (“BIF”) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (“SAIF”), into the DIF. On October 3, 2008, the EESA temporarily raised the basic limit on federal deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor. The basic deposit insurance limit would have returned to $100,000 after December 31, 2009. On May 20, 2009, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act extended the temporary increase in the standard maximum deposit insurance amount to $250,000 per depositor through December 31, 2013. The standard maximum deposit insurance amount would return to $100,000 on January 1, 2014. The Dodd-Frank Act permanently raises the current standard maximum federal deposit insurance amount from $100,000 to $250,000 per qualified account.

In November 2008, the FDIC approved the final ruling establishing the Transaction Account Guarantee Program (“TAGP”) as part of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLGP”). Under this program, effective immediately and through December 31, 2009, all non-interest bearing transaction accounts became fully guaranteed by the FDIC for the entire amount in the account. This unlimited coverage also extended to NOW (interest bearing deposit accounts) earning an interest rate no greater than 0.50% and all IOLTAs (lawyers’ trust accounts). Coverage under the TAGP, funded through insurance premiums paid by participating financial institutions, was in addition to and separate from the additional coverage announced under EESA. In August 2009, the FDIC extended the TAGP portion of the TLGP through June 30, 2010. In June 2010, the FDIC extended the TAGP portion of the TLGP for an additional six months, from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. The rule required that interest rates on qualifying NOW accounts offered by banks participating in the program be reduced to 0.25% from 0.50%. The rule provided for an additional extension of the program, without further rulemaking, for a period of time not to exceed December 31, 2011. Umpqua elected to participate in the TAGP program through the extended period. In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act, was enacted which provides for unlimited deposit insurance for noninterest bearing transactions accounts (excluding NOW, but including IOLTAs) beginning December 31, 2010 for a period of two years.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution if it determines that the institution has engaged in or is engaging in unsafe and unsound banking practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition or has violated any applicable law, regulation or order or any condition imposed in writing by, or pursuant to, any written agreement with the FDIC. The termination of deposit insurance for the Bank could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations due to the fact that the Bank’s liquidity position would likely be affected by deposit withdrawal activity.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

Dividends.    Under the Oregon Bank Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, the Bank is subject to restrictions on the payment of cash dividends to its parent company. A bank may not pay cash dividends if that payment would reduce the amount of its capital below that necessary to meet minimum applicable regulatory capital requirements. In addition, under the Oregon Bank Act, the amount of the dividend paid by the Bank may not be greater than net unreserved retained earnings, after first deducting to the extent not already charged against earnings or reflected in a reserve, all bad debts, which are debts on which interest is unpaid and past due at least six months unless the debt is fully secured and in the process of collection; all other assets charged-off as required by Oregon bank regulators or a state or federal examiner; and all accrued expenses, interest and taxes of the Bank. In addition, state and federal regulatory authorities are authorized to prohibit banks and holding companies from paying dividends that would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve’s view that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that its net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.

Capital Adequacy.    The federal and state bank regulatory agencies use capital adequacy guidelines in their examination and regulation of holding companies and banks. If capital falls below the minimum levels established by these guidelines, a holding company or a bank may be denied approval to acquire or establish additional banks or non-bank businesses or to open new facilities.

The FDIC and Federal Reserve have adopted risk-based capital guidelines for holding companies and banks. The risk-based capital guidelines are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profile among holding companies and banks, to account for off-balance sheet exposure and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets. Assets and off-balance sheet items are assigned to broad risk categories, each with appropriate weights. The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets and off-balance sheet items. The capital adequacy guidelines limit the degree to which a holding company or bank may leverage its equity capital.

Federal regulations establish minimum requirements for the capital adequacy of depository institutions, such as the Bank. Banks with capital ratios below the required minimums are subject to certain administrative actions, including prompt corrective action, the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) requires federal banking regulators to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to a capital-deficient institution, including requiring a capital restoration plan and restricting certain growth activities of the institution. Umpqua could be required to guarantee any such capital restoration plan required of the Bank if the Bank became undercapitalized. Pursuant to FDICIA, regulations were adopted defining five capital levels: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, severely undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. Under the regulations, the Bank is considered “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2011.

Federal and State Regulation of Broker-Dealers.    Umpqua Investments, Inc. is a fully disclosed introducing broker-dealer clearing through First Clearing LLC. Umpqua Investments is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and has deposits insured through the Securities Investors Protection Corp (“SIPC”) as well as third party insurers. FINRA performs regular examinations of the firm that include reviews of policies, procedures, recordkeeping, trade practices, and customer protection as well as other inquiries.

SIPC protects client securities and cash up to $500,000, including $100,000 for cash with additional coverage provided through First Clearing for the remaining net equity balance in a brokerage account, if any. This coverage does not include losses in investment accounts.

Broker-Dealer and Related Regulatory Supervision.    Umpqua Investments is a member of, and is subject to the regulatory supervision of, FINRA. Areas subject to this regulatory review include compliance with trading rules, financial reporting, investment suitability for clients, and compliance with stock exchange rules and regulations.

Effects of Government Monetary Policy.    Our earnings and growth are affected not only by general economic conditions, but also by the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government, particularly the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve

implements national monetary policy for such purposes as curbing inflation and combating recession, through its open market operations in U.S. Government securities, control of the discount rate applicable to borrowings from the Federal Reserve, and establishment of reserve requirements against certain deposits. These activities influence growth of bank loans, investments and deposits, and also affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. The nature and impact of future changes in monetary policies and their impact on us cannot be predicted with certainty.

Regulatory Structure of the Financial Services Industry.    Federal laws and regulations governing banking and financial services underwent significant changes in recent years and are subject to significant changes in the future. From time to time, legislation is introduced in the United States Congress that contains proposals for altering the structure, regulation, and competitive relationships of the nation’s financial institutions. If enacted into law, these proposals could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities, or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, and other financial institutions. Whether or in what form any such legislation may be adopted or the extent to which our business might be affected thereby cannot be predicted.

The GLB Act, enacted in November 1999, repealed sections of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act, that prohibited banks from engaging in securities activities, and prohibited securities firms from engaging in banking. The GLB Act created a new form of holding company, known as a financial holding company, that is permitted to acquire subsidiaries that are variously engaged in banking, securities underwriting and dealing, and insurance underwriting.

A bank holding company, if it meets specified requirements, may elect to become a financial holding company by filing a declaration with the Federal Reserve, and may thereafter provide its customers with a broader spectrum of products and services than a traditional bank holding company is permitted to do. A financial holding company may, through a subsidiary, engage in any activity that is deemed to be financial in nature and activities that are incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature. These activities include traditional banking services and activities previously permitted to bank holding companies under Federal Reserve regulations, but also include underwriting and dealing in securities, providing investment advisory services, underwriting and selling insurance, merchant banking (holding a portfolio of commercial businesses, regardless of the nature of the business, for investment), and arranging or facilitating financial transactions for third parties.

To qualify as a financial holding company, the bank holding company must be deemed to be well-capitalized and well-managed, as those terms are used by the Federal Reserve. In addition, each subsidiary bank of a bank holding company must also be well-capitalized and well-managed and be rated at least “satisfactory” under the Community Reinvestment Act. A bank holding company that does not qualify, or has not chosen, to become a financial holding company must limit its activities to traditional banking activities and those non-banking activities the Federal Reserve has deemed to be permissible because they are closely related to the business of banking.

The GLB Act also includes provisions to protect consumer privacy by prohibiting financial services providers, whether or not affiliated with a bank, from disclosing non-public personal, financial information to unaffiliated parties without the consent of the customer, and by requiring annual disclosure of the provider’s privacy policy.

Legislation enacted by Congress in 1995 permits interstate banking and branching, which allows banks to expand nationwide through acquisition, consolidation or merger. Under this law, an adequately capitalized bank holding company may acquire banks in any state or merge banks across state lines if permitted by state law. Further, banks may establish and operate branches in any state subject to the restrictions of applicable state law. Under Oregon law, an out-of-state bank or bank holding company may merge with or acquire an Oregon state chartered bank or bank holding company if the Oregon bank, or in the case of a bank holding company, the subsidiary bank, has been in existence for a minimum of three years, and the law of the state in which the acquiring bank is located permits such merger. The Bank now has the ability to open additional de novo branches in the states of Oregon, California, Washington, and Nevada.

Section 613 of the Dodd-Frank Act eliminates interstate branching restrictions that were implemented as part of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, and removes many restrictions on de novo interstate branching by national and state-chartered banks. The FDIC and the OCC now have authority to approve applications by insured state

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

nonmember banks and national banks, respectively, to establish de novo branches in states other than the bank’s home state if “the law of the State in which the branch is located, or is to be located, would permit establishment of the branch, if the bank were a State bank chartered by such State.” The enactment of this section may significantly increase interstate banking by community banks in western states, where barriers to entry were previously high.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation.    The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (“USA Patriot Act”), enacted in 2001:

The USA Patriot Act also increases governmental powers to investigate terrorism, including expanded government access to account records. The Department of the Treasury is empowered to administer and make rules to implement the Act, which to some degree, affects our record-keeping and reporting expenses. Should the Bank’s AML compliance program be deemed insufficient by federal regulators, we would not be able to grow through acquiring other institutions or opening de novo branches.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 addresses public company corporate governance, auditing, accounting, executive compensation and enhanced and timely disclosure of corporate information.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act represents significant federal involvement in matters traditionally left to state regulatory systems, such as the regulation of the accounting profession, and regulation of the relationship between a Board of Directors and management and between a Board of Directors and its committees.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides for, among other things:

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also requires:

The SEC has adopted regulations to implement various provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including disclosures in periodic filings pursuant to the Exchange Act. Also, in response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, NASDAQ adopted new standards for listed companies. In 2004, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act substantially increased our reporting and compliance expenses.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA).    This act granted broad powers to the U.S. Treasury, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve to stabilize the financial markets under the following programs:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.    On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act, which is a sweeping overhaul of financial industry regulation. In general, the Act:

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

In addition to the other information set forth in this report, you should carefully consider the factors discussed below. These factors could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and capital position, and could cause our actual results to differ materially from our historical results or the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report.

Difficult market conditions have adversely affected and may continue to have an adverse effect on our industry.

Since 2007, dramatic declines in the housing market, with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment and under-employment have negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage loans and resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities as well as major commercial and investment banks. These write-downs have caused many financial institutions to seek additional capital, to merge with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, to fail. Reflecting concern about the stability of the financial markets generally and the strength of counterparties, many lenders and institutional investors have reduced or ceased providing funding to borrowers, including to other financial institutions. This market turmoil and tightening of credit have led to an increased level of commercial and consumer delinquencies, lack of consumer confidence, increased market volatility and widespread reduction of business activity generally. The resulting economic pressure on consumers and lack of confidence in the financial markets has adversely affected our business, financial condition and results of operations. We expect only moderate improvement in these conditions in the near future. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us and others in the financial institutions industry. In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with these events:

If current levels of market disruption and volatility continue or worsen, there can be no assurance that we will not experience an adverse effect, which may be material, on our ability to access capital and on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The majority of our assets are loans, which if not repaid would result in losses to the Bank.

The Bank, like other lenders, is subject to credit risk, which is the risk of losing principal or interest due to borrowers’ failure to repay loans in accordance with their terms. Underwriting and documentation controls cannot mitigate all credit risk. A downturn in the economy or the real estate market in our market areas or a rapid increase in interest rates could have a negative effect on collateral values and borrowers’ ability to repay. To the extent loans are not paid timely by borrowers, the loans are placed on

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

non-accrual status, thereby reducing interest income. Further, under these circumstances, an additional provision for loan and lease losses or unfunded commitments may be required. See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—”Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses and Reserve for Unfunded Commitments”, “Provision for Loan and Lease Losses” and “Asset Quality and Non-Performing Assets”.

A large percentage of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, in particular commercial real estate. Continued deterioration in the real estate market or other segments of our loan portfolio would lead to additional losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately 80% of our total loan portfolio is secured by real estate, the majority of which is commercial real estate. As a result of increased levels of commercial and consumer delinquencies and declining real estate values, since 2007 we have experienced elevated levels of net charge-offs and allowances for loan and lease reserves. Increases in commercial and consumer delinquency levels or continued declines in real estate market values would require increased net charge-offs and increases in the allowance for loan and lease losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and prospects.

Continued deterioration in the real estate market could result in loans that we have restructured to become delinquent and classified as non-accrual loans.

At December 31, 2011, impaired loans of $80.6 million were classified as performing restructured loans. We restructured the loans in response to borrower financial difficulty, and generally provided for a temporary modification of loan repayment terms. Loans are reported as restructured when we grant concessions to a borrower experiencing financial difficulties that we would not otherwise consider. Examples of such concessions include forgiveness of principal or accrued interest, extending the maturity dates or providing a lower interest rate than would be normally available for a transaction of similar risk. In exchange for these concessions, at the time of restructure, we require additional collateral to bring the loan to value to at most 100%. A further decline in the economic conditions in our general market areas or other factors could adversely impact borrowers with restructured loans and cause borrowers to become delinquent or otherwise default or call into question their ability to repay full interest and principal in accordance with the restructured terms, which would result in the restructured loan being reclassified as non-accrual.

The effects of the current economic recession have been particularly severe in our primary market areas in the Pacific Northwest, Northern California, and Nevada.

Substantially all of our loans are to businesses and individuals in Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. The Pacific Northwest has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates and major employers in Oregon and Washington have implemented substantial employee layoffs or scaled back growth plans. Severe declines in housing prices and property values have been particularly acute in our primary market areas. The States of California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada continue to face fiscal challenges, the long-term effects of which on each State’s economy cannot be predicted. A further deterioration in the economic conditions or a prolonged delay in economic recovery in our primary market areas could result in the following consequences, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business: loan delinquencies may increase; problem assets and foreclosures may increase putting further price pressures on valuations generally; demand for our products and services may decrease; low cost or noninterest bearing deposits may decrease; and collateral for loans made by us, especially real estate, may decline in value, in turn reducing customers’ borrowing power, and reducing the value of assets and collateral associated with our existing loans.

The benefits of our FDIC loss-sharing agreements may be reduced or eliminated.

In connection with Umpqua Bank’s assumption of the banking operations of Evergreen Bank, Rainier Pacific Bank, and Nevada Security Bank, the Bank entered into Whole Bank Purchase and Assumption Agreements with Loss-Share. Our decisions regarding the fair value of assets acquired, including the FDIC loss-sharing assets, could be inaccurate which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future prospects. Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the acquired loans, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of secured loans. In FDIC-assisted acquisitions

that include loss-sharing agreements, we record a loss-sharing asset that reflects our estimate of the timing and amount of future losses that are anticipated to occur in and used to value the acquired loan portfolio. In determining the size of the loss-sharing asset, we analyze the loan portfolio based on historical loss experience, volume and classification of loans, volume and trends in delinquencies and nonaccruals, local economic conditions, and other pertinent information.

If our assumptions relating to the timing or amount of expected losses are incorrect, there could be a negative impact on our operating results. Increases in the amount of future losses in response to different economic conditions or adverse developments in the acquired loan portfolio may result in increased credit loss provisions. Changes in our estimate of the timing of those losses, specifically if those losses are to occur beyond the applicable loss-sharing periods, may result in impairments of the FDIC indemnification asset.

Our ability to obtain reimbursement under the loss-sharing agreements on covered assets depends on our compliance with the terms of the loss-sharing agreements.

Management must certify to the FDIC on a quarterly basis our compliance with the terms of the FDIC loss-sharing agreements as a prerequisite to obtaining reimbursement from the FDIC for realized losses on covered assets. The required terms of the agreements are extensive and failure to comply with any of the guidelines could result in a specific asset or group of assets permanently losing their loss-sharing coverage. Additionally, management may decide to forgo loss-share coverage on certain assets to allow greater flexibility over the management of certain assets. As of December 31, 2011, $641.9 million, or 5.6%, of the Company’s assets were covered by the aforementioned FDIC loss-sharing agreements.

Under the terms of the FDIC loss-sharing agreements, the assignment or transfer of a loss-sharing agreement to another entity generally requires the written consent of the FDIC. In addition, the Bank may not assign or otherwise transfer a loss-sharing agreement during its term without the prior written consent of the FDIC. No assurances can be given that we will manage the covered assets in such a way as to maintain loss-share coverage on all such assets.

Acquisition opportunities may not become available and increased competition may make it more difficult for us to acquire banks in traditional M&A transactions or to successfully bid on failed bank transactions.

Our near-term business strategy includes pursue the acquisition of banks within or in proximity to our geographic footprint that may be operating under capital constraints, regulatory pressure or other competitive disadvantages as well as analyzing and bidding on failing banks that the FDIC plans to place in receivership. Traditional merger and acquisition transactions have been infrequent in the past few years, but we expect that the volume may be increasing as banks work through their problem loan portfolios. However, many target banks may be valued at a discount to their book value, making transactions difficult to conclude. In addition, the FDIC may not place banks that meet our strategic objectives into receivership and the bidding process for failing banks has become very competitive. We may not be able to match or beat the bids of other acquirers unless we bid aggressively by increasing the premium paid on assumed deposits or reducing the discount bid on assets purchased, which could make the acquisition less beneficial to the financial performance of the Bank.

A rapid change in interest rates, or maintenance of rates at historically high or low levels for an extended period, could make it difficult to maintain our current interest income spread and could result in reduced earnings.

Our earnings are largely derived from net interest income, which is interest income and fees earned on loans and investments, less interest paid on deposits and other borrowings. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond the control of our management, including general economic conditions and the policies of various governmental and regulatory authorities. As interest rates change, net interest income is affected. With fixed rate assets (such as fixed rate loans and most investment securities) and liabilities (such as certificates of deposit), the effect on net interest income depends on the cash flows associated with the maturity of the asset or liability. Asset/liability management policies may not be successfully implemented and from time to time our risk position is not balanced. An unanticipated rapid decrease or increase in interest rates could have an adverse effect on the spreads between the interest rates earned on assets and the rates of interest paid on liabilities, and therefore on the level of net interest income. For instance, any rapid increase in interest rates in the future could result in interest expense increasing faster than interest income because of fixed rate loans and longer-term investments. Historically low rates for an extended period of time result in reduced returns from the investment and loan portfolios. Further, substantially

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

higher interest rates generally reduce loan demand and may result in slower loan growth than previously experienced. See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—”Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk”.

Interest rate volatility and credit risk adjusted rate spreads may impact our financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value, particularly the fair value of our junior subordinated debentures.

The widening of the credit risk adjusted rate spreads on potential new issuances of junior subordinated debentures above our contractual spreads and reductions in three month LIBOR rates have contributed to cumulative positive fair value adjustments in our junior subordinated debentures carried at fair value over the last three years. Tightening of these credit risk adjusted rate spreads and interest rate volatility may result in recognizing negative fair value adjustments charged to earnings in the future.

The Dodd-Frank Act and other recent legislative and regulatory initiatives contain numerous provisions and requirements that could detrimentally affect the Company’s business.

The Dodd-Frank Act and related regulations subject us and other financial institutions to additional restrictions, oversight, reporting obligations and costs, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or the price of our common stock. In addition, this increased regulation of the financial services industry restricts the ability of firms within the industry to conduct business consistent with historical practices, including aspects such as compensation, interest rates, new and inconsistent consumer protection regulations and mortgage regulation, among others. Congress or state legislatures could also adopt laws reducing the amount that borrowers are otherwise contractually required to pay under existing loan contracts, require lenders to extend or restructure certain loans or limit foreclosure and collection remedies. Federal and state regulatory agencies also frequently adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied.

We cannot predict the substance or impact of pending or future legislation or regulation, or the application thereof. Compliance with such current and potential regulation and scrutiny will significantly increase our costs, impede the efficiency of our internal business processes, may require us to increase our regulatory capital and may limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner. In response, we may be required to or choose to raise additional capital, which could have a dilutive effect on the existing holders of our common stock and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

We may be required to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed, or it may only be available on unacceptable terms, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We are required by federal and state regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations or to support future FDIC-assisted acquisitions. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. Accordingly, we may not be able to raise additional capital, if needed, on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations and pursue our growth strategy could be materially impaired.

Conditions in the financial markets may limit our access to additional funding to meet our liquidity needs.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale or pledging as collateral of loans and other assets could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry in general. An adverse regulatory action against us could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are nonspecific to us, such as severe disruption of the financial markets or negative news and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole as evidenced by turmoil in the domestic and worldwide credit markets.

Our wholesale funding sources may prove insufficient to support our future growth or an unexpected reduction in deposits.

We must maintain sufficient funds to respond to the needs of depositors and borrowers. As a part of our liquidity management, we use a number of funding sources in addition to core deposit growth and repayments and maturities of loans and investments. If we grow more rapidly than any increase in our deposit balances, we are likely to become more dependent on

these sources, which include Federal Home Loan Bank advances, proceeds from the sale of loans and liquidity resources at the holding company. Our financial flexibility will be severely constrained if we are unable to maintain our access to funding or if adequate financing is not available to accommodate future growth at acceptable interest rates. If we are required to rely more heavily on more expensive funding sources to support future growth, our revenues may not increase proportionately to cover our costs, and our profitability would be adversely affected.

As a bank holding company that conducts substantially all of our operations through Umpqua Bank, our banking subsidiary, our ability to pay dividends, repurchase our shares or to repay our indebtedness depends upon liquid assets held by the holding company and the results of operations of our subsidiaries.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation is a separate and distinct legal entity from our subsidiaries and it receives substantially all of its revenue from dividends paid from Umpqua Bank. There are legal limitations on the extent to which the Bank may extend credit, pay dividends or otherwise supply funds to, or engage in transactions with, us. Our inability to receive dividends from the Bank could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our net income depends primarily upon Umpqua Bank’s net interest income, which is the income that remains after deducting from total income generated by earning assets the expense attributable to the acquisition of the funds required to support earning assets (primarily interest paid on deposits). The amount of interest income is dependent on many factors including the volume of earning assets, the general level of interest rates, the dynamics of changes in interest rates and the levels of nonperforming loans. All of those factors affect the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to the holding company.

Various statutory provisions restrict the amount of dividends the Bank can pay to us without regulatory approval. The Bank may not pay cash dividends if that payment could reduce the amount of its capital below that necessary to meet the “adequately capitalized” level in accordance with regulatory capital requirements. It is also possible that, depending upon the financial condition of the Bank and other factors, regulatory authorities could conclude that payment of dividends or other payments, including payments to us, is an unsafe or unsound practice and impose restrictions or prohibit such payments. Under Oregon law, the Bank may not pay dividends in excess of unreserved retained earnings, deducting there from, to the extent not already charged against earnings or reflected in a reserve, the following: (1) all bad debts, which are debts on which interest is past due and unpaid for at least six months, unless the debt is fully secured and in the process of collection; (2) all other assets charged-off as required by Oregon bank regulators or a state or federal examiner; and (3) all accrued expenses, interest and taxes of the institution. The Federal Reserve has issued a policy statement on the payment of cash dividends by bank holding companies, which expresses the Federal Reserve’s view that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that its net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.

A significant decline in the company’s market value could result in an impairment of goodwill.

Recently, the Company’s common stock has been trading at a price below its book value, including goodwill and other intangible assets. The valuation of goodwill is estimated using discounted cash flows of forecasted earnings, estimated sales price based on recent observable market transactions and market capitalization based on current stock price. If impairment was deemed to exist, a write down of goodwill would occur with a charge to earnings. In the second quarter 2009, we recognized a goodwill impairment charge of $112.0 million related to our Community Banking operating segment. See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—“Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”.

We have a gross deferred tax asset position of $124.3 million at December 31, 2011, and we are required to assess the recoverability of this asset on an ongoing basis.

Deferred tax assets are evaluated on a quarterly basis to determine if they are expected to be recoverable in the future. Our evaluation considers positive and negative evidence to assess whether it is more likely than not that a portion of the asset will not be realized. The risk of a valuation allowance increases if continuing operating losses are incurred. Future negative operating performance or other negative evidence may result in a valuation allowance being recorded against some or all of this amount. A valuation allowance on our deferred tax asset could have a material adverse impact on our capital and results of operations.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

We are pursuing an aggressive growth strategy that is expected to include mergers and acquisitions, which could create integration risks.

Umpqua is among the fastest-growing community financial services organizations in the United States. Since 2000, we have completed the acquisition and integration of 10 other financial institutions. There is no assurance that future acquisitions will be successfully integrated. We have announced our intent to pursue FDIC-assisted acquisition opportunities, traditional M&A transactions, and to open new stores in Oregon, Washington and California to continue our growth strategy. If we pursue our growth strategy too aggressively, or if factors beyond management’s control divert attention away from our integration plans, we might not be able to realize some or all of the anticipated benefits. Moreover, we are dependent on the efforts of key personnel to achieve the synergies associated with our acquisitions. The loss of one or more of our key persons could have a material adverse effect upon our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits.

The financial services industry is highly competitive.

We face pricing competition for loans and deposits. We also face competition with respect to customer convenience, product lines, accessibility of service and service capabilities. Our most direct competition comes from other banks, brokerages, mortgage companies and savings institutions. We also face competition from credit unions, government-sponsored enterprises, mutual fund companies, insurance companies and other non-bank businesses. This significant competition in attracting and retaining deposits and making loans as well as in providing other financial services throughout our market area may impact future earnings and growth.

Involvement in non-bank business creates risks associated with the securities industry.

Umpqua Investments’ retail brokerage operations present special risks not borne by community banks that focus exclusively on community banking. For example, the brokerage industry is subject to fluctuations in the stock market that may have a significant adverse impact on transaction fees, customer activity and investment portfolio gains and losses. Likewise, additional or modified regulations may adversely affect Umpqua Investments’ operations. Umpqua Investments is also dependent on a small number of established brokers, whose departure could result in the loss of a significant number of customer accounts. A significant decline in fees and commissions or trading losses suffered in the investment portfolio could adversely affect Umpqua Investments’ income and potentially require the contribution of additional capital to support its operations. Umpqua Investments is subject to claim arbitration risk arising from customers who claim their investments were not suitable or that their portfolios were too actively traded. These risks increase when the market, as a whole, declines. The risks associated with retail brokerage may not be supported by the income generated by those operations. See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—”Non-interest Income”.

Our banking and brokerage operations are subject to extensive government regulation that is expected to become more burdensome, increase our costs and make us less competitive compared to financial services firms that are not subject to the same regulation.

We and our subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state laws. These laws and regulations are primarily intended to protect customers, depositors and the deposit insurance fund, rather than shareholders. The Bank is an Oregon state-chartered commercial bank whose primary regulator is the Oregon Division of Finance and Corporate Securities. The Bank is also subject to the supervision by and the regulations of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, the California Department of Financial Institutions, the Nevada Division of Financial Institutions, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), which insures bank deposits and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Umpqua Investments is subject to extensive regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Umpqua is subject to regulation and supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the SEC and NASDAQ. Federal and state regulations may place banks and brokerage firms at a competitive disadvantage compared to less regulated competitors such as finance companies, credit unions, mortgage banking companies and leasing companies. There is also the possibility that laws could be enacted that would prohibit a company from controlling both an FDIC-insured bank and a broker dealer, or restrict their activities if under common ownership. If we receive less than satisfactory results on regulatory examinations, we could be restricted from making acquisitions, adding new stores, developing new lines of business

or otherwise continuing our growth strategy for a period of time. Future changes in federal and state banking and brokerage regulations could adversely affect our operating results and ability to continue to compete effectively.

The value of the securities in our investment securities portfolio may be negatively affected by continued disruptions in securities markets.

The market for some of the investment securities held in our portfolio has become extremely volatile over the past three years. Volatile market conditions or deteriorating financial performance of the issuer or obligor may detrimentally affect the value of these securities. There can be no assurance that the declines in market value associated with these disruptions will not result in other-than-temporary or permanent impairments of these assets, which would lead to accounting charges that could have a material adverse effect on our net income and capital levels.

The volatility of our mortgage banking business can adversely affect earnings if our mitigating strategies are not successful.

Changes in interest rates greatly affect the mortgage banking business. One of the principal risks in this area is prepayment of mortgages and the consequent detrimental effect on the value of mortgage servicing rights (“MSR”). We may employ hedging strategies to mitigate this risk but if the hedging decisions and strategies are not successful, our net income could be adversely affected. See Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—”Mortgage Servicing Rights”.

Our business is highly reliant on technology and our ability to manage the operational risks associated with technology.

Our business involves storing and processing sensitive consumer and business customer data. A cyber security breach may result in theft of such data or disruption of our transaction processing systems. We depend on internal systems and outsourced technology to support these data storage and processing operations. Our inability to use or access these information systems at critical points in time could unfavorably impact the timeliness and efficiency of our business operations. A material breach of customer data security may negatively impact our business reputation and cause a loss of customers, result in increased expense to contain the event and/or require that we provide credit monitoring services for affected customers, result in regulatory fines and sanctions and may result in class action litigation. Cyber security risk management programs are expensive to maintain and will not protect the Company from all risks associated with maintaining the security of customer data and the Company’s proprietary data from external and internal intrusions, disaster recovery and failures in the controls used by our vendors. In addition, Congress and the legislatures of states in which we operate regularly consider legislation that would impose more stringent data privacy requirements.

Our business is highly reliant on third party vendors and our ability to manage the operational risks associated with outsourcing those services.

We rely on third parties to provide services that are integral to our operations. These vendors provide services that support our operations, including the storage and processing of sensitive consumer and business customer data, as well as our sales efforts. A cyber security breach of a vendor’s system may result in theft of our data or disruption of business processes. A material breach of customer data security at a service provider’s site may negatively impact our business reputation and cause a loss of customers; result in increased expense to contain the event and/or require that we provide credit monitoring services for affected customers, result in regulatory fines and sanctions and may result in litigation. In most cases, we will remain primarily liable to our customers for losses arising from a breach of a vendor’s data security system. We rely on our outsourced service providers to implement and maintain prudent cyber security controls. We have procedures in place to assess a vendor’s cyber security controls prior to establishing a contractual relationship and to periodically review assessments of those control systems; however, these procedures are not infallible and a vendor’s system can be breached despite the procedures we employ. We have alliances with other companies that assist in our sales efforts. In our wealth management business, we have an alliance with Ferguson Wellman, a registered investment advisor to whom we refer customers for investment advice and asset management services. We cannot be sure that we will be able to maintain these relationships on favorable terms. In addition, some of our data processing services are provided by companies associated with our competitors. The loss of these vendor relationships could disrupt the services we provide to our customers and cause us to incur significant expense in connection with replacing these services.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

Store construction can disrupt banking activities and may not be completed on time or within budget, which could result in reduced earnings.

The Bank has, over the past several years, been transformed from a traditional community bank into a community-oriented financial services retailer. We have announced plans to build new stores in Oregon, Washington and California as part of our de novo branching strategy. This includes our strategy of building “Neighborhood Stores.” We also continue to remodel acquired bank branches to resemble retail stores that include distinct physical areas or boutiques such as a “serious about service center,” an “investment opportunity center” and a “computer cafe.” Store construction involves significant expense and risks associated with locating store sites and delays in obtaining permits and completing construction. Remodeling involves significant expense, disrupts banking activities during the remodeling period, and presents a new look and feel to the banking services and products being offered. Financial constraints may delay remodeling projects. Customers may not react favorably to the construction-related activities or the remodeled look and feel. There are risks that construction or remodeling costs will exceed forecasted budgets and that there may be delays in completing the projects, which could cause disruption in those markets.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.

The executive offices of Umpqua and Umpqua Investments are located at One SW Columbia Street in Portland, Oregon in office space that is leased. The Bank owns its main office located in Roseburg, Oregon. At December 31, 2011, the Bank conducted Community Banking activities or operated Commercial Banking Centers at 194 locations, in Northern California, Oregon and Washington along the I-5 corridor; in the San Francisco Bay area, Inland Foothills, Napa and Coastal regions in California; in Bend and along the Coast of Oregon; in greater Seattle and Bellevue, Washington, and in Reno, Nevada, of which 64 are owned and 130 are leased under various agreements. As of December 31, 2011, the Bank also operated 15 facilities for the purpose of administrative and other functions, such as back-office support, of which five are owned and 10 are leased. All facilities are in a good state of repair and appropriately designed for use as banking or administrative office facilities. As of December 31, 2011, Umpqua Investments leased three stand-alone offices from unrelated third parties, one stand-alone office from the Bank, and also leased space in eight Bank stores under lease agreements that are based on market rates.

Additional information with respect to owned premises and lease commitments is included in Notes 8 and 20, respectively, of theNotes to Consolidated Financial Statementsin Item  8 below.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

In our Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, we initially reported on a putative stockholders derivative action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon by Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund and Laborers’ Local #231 Pension Fund naming Umpqua’s present directors, certain executive officers and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) as defendants and Umpqua as nominal party. On January 11, 2012, District Court Magistrate Judge, John V. Acosta, ruled on a motion to dismiss filed by Umpqua’s present directors and certain executive officers and issued findings and a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an Objection to those findings and recommendations and the case is pending resolution of those Objections.

On December 29, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California-San Francisco Division (case no. 11-6700), Amber Hawthorne filed a class action lawsuit against Umpqua Bank on behalf of herself and a national class, including a sub-class of California residents seeking in excess of $5 million, plus punitive damages, alleging that Umpqua Bank engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by posting debit items in a high to low order to maximize overdraft fees, automatically enrolling customers in debit Overdraft Protection (“ODP”) programs before the Regulation E revisions, failing to adequately disclose posting order, manipulating posting to maximize ODP fees and failing to advise customers how to minimize fees. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a violation of California Business & Professions Code 17200 (for the California subclass). The

claims are in the initial stage of investigation but Umpqua believes that the claims are not supportable and are overstated and the Company intends to vigorously defend the case.

Due to the nature of our business, we are involved in legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

See Note 20 (Legal Proceedings) for a discussion of the Company’s involvement in litigation pertaining to Visa, Inc.

ITEM 4. (REMOVED AND RESERVED)

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

PART II

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

(a) Our Common Stock is traded on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “UMPQ.” As of December 31, 2011, there were 200,000,000 common shares authorized for issuance. The following table presents the high and low sales prices of our common stock for each period, based on inter-dealer prices that do not include retail mark-ups, mark-downs or commissions, and cash dividends declared for each period:

As of December 31, 2011, our common stock was held by approximately 4,754 shareholders of record, a number that does not include beneficial owners who hold shares in “street name”, or shareholders from previously acquired companies that have not exchanged their stock. At December 31, 2011, a total of 2.2 million stock options, 585,000 shares of restricted stock and 219,000 restricted stock units were outstanding. Additional information about stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units is included in Note 22 of theNotes to Consolidated Financial Statementsin Item 8 below and in Item 12 below.

The payment of future cash dividends is at the discretion of our Board and subject to a number of factors, including results of operations, general business conditions, growth, financial condition and other factors deemed relevant by the Board of Directors. Further, our ability to pay future cash dividends is subject to certain regulatory requirements and restrictions discussed in theSupervision and Regulationsection in Item 1 above.

During 2011, Umpqua’s Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.05 per common share for the first and second quarters and $0.07 per common share for the third and fourth quarters. These dividends were made pursuant to our existing dividend policy and in consideration of, among other things, earnings, regulatory capital levels, the overall payout ratio and expected asset growth. We expect that the dividend rate will be reassessed on a quarterly basis by the Board of Directors in accordance with the dividend policy.

We have a dividend reinvestment plan that permits shareholder participants to purchase shares at the then-current market price in lieu of the receipt of cash dividends. Shares issued in connection with the dividend reinvestment plan are purchased in open market transactions.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information about equity compensation plans that provide for the award of securities or the grant of options to purchase securities to employees and directors of Umpqua, its subsidiaries and its predecessors by merger that were in effect at December 31, 2011.

(shares in thousands)

Umpqua Holdings Corporation

During the year ended December 31, 2011, there were 8,135 shares tendered in connection with option exercises. During the year ended December 31, 2010, there were 4,515 shares tendered in connection with option exercises. Restricted shares cancelled to pay withholding taxes totaled 23,158 and 12,443 shares during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Restricted stock units cancelled to pay withholding taxes totaled 22,349 during the year ended December 31, 2011. Restricted stock units cancelled to pay withholding taxes totaled 5,583 during the year ended December 31, 2010.

STOCK PERFORMANCE GRAPH

The following chart, which is furnished not filed, compares the yearly percentage changes in the cumulative shareholder return on our common stock during the five fiscal years ended December 31, 2011, with (i) the Total Return Index for NASDAQ Bank Stocks (ii) the Total Return Index for The Nasdaq Stock Market (U.S. Companies) and (iii) the Standard and Poor’s 500. This comparison assumes $100.00 was invested on December 31, 2006, in our common stock and the comparison indices, and assumes the reinvestment of all cash dividends prior to any tax effect and retention of all stock dividends. Price information from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2011, was obtained by using the NASDAQ closing prices as of the last trading day of each year.