| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Off-Balance-Sheet Financing and Concentrations of Credit The Company is a party to certain financial instruments with off-balance-sheet risk to meet the financing needs of its customers. These financial instruments include the Company’s commitments to extend credit. Those instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit risk in excess of the amount recognized on the consolidated statement of condition. The contract amounts of those instruments reflect the extent of involvement the Company has in particular classes of financial instruments. The Company’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual notional amounts of those instruments which are presented in the tables below (dollars in thousands). The Company uses the same credit policies in making commitments as it does for on-balance-sheet instruments. June 30, 2024 Fixed Rate Variable Rate Total Financial instruments whose contract amounts represent credit risk (including unused lines of credit and unadvanced loan funds): Commitments to extend credit $ 30,007 $ 273,932 $ 303,939 Standby letters of credit — 21,943 21,943 $ 30,007 $ 295,875 $ 325,882 June 30, 2023 Fixed Rate Variable Rate Total Financial instruments whose contract amounts represent credit risk (including unused lines of credit and unadvanced loan funds): Commitments to extend credit $ 20,541 $ 277,088 $ 297,629 Standby letters of credit — 28,372 28,372 $ 20,541 $ 305,460 $ 326,001 Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and require payment of a fee. Since certain commitments are expected to expire without being fully drawn, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The Company evaluates each customer’s credit worthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral, if any, required by the Company for the extension of credit is based on management’s credit evaluation of the customer. Commitments to extend credit may be written on a fixed rate basis thus exposing the Company to interest rate risk, given the possibility that market rates may change between commitment and actual extension of credit. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee payment on behalf of a customer or to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. The credit risk involved in issuing these instruments is essentially the same as that involved in extending loans to customers. Since a portion of these instruments will expire unused, the total amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Each customer is evaluated individually for creditworthiness under the same underwriting standards used for commitments to extend credit and on-balance-sheet instruments. Bank policies governing loan collateral apply to standby letters of credit at the time of credit extension. Certain residential mortgage loans are written on an adjustable basis and include interest rate caps which limit annual and lifetime increases in interest rates. Generally, adjustable rate mortgages have an annual rate increase cap of 2% to 5% and lifetime rate increase cap of 5% to 6% above the initial loan rate. These caps expose the Company to interest rate risk should market rates increase above these limits. At June 30, 2024 and 2023, approximately $292.6 million and $136.2 million of adjustable rate residential mortgage loans had interest rate caps, respectively. In addition, certain adjustable rate residential mortgage loans have a conversion option whereby the borrower may elect to convert the loan to a fixed rate during a designated time period. At June 30, 2024 and 2023, approximately $504,000 and $613,000 of the adjustable rate mortgage loans had conversion options, respectively. The Company periodically sells residential mortgage loans to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”). At June 30, 2024, the Company had no loans held for sale. In addition, the Company has no loan commitments with borrowers at June 30, 2024 with rate lock agreements which are intended to be held for sale, if closed. The Company generally determines whether or not a loan is held for sale at the time that loan commitments are entered into or at the time a convertible adjustable rate mortgage loan converts to a fixed interest rate. In order to reduce the interest rate risk associated with the portfolio of loans held for sale, as well as loan commitments with locked interest rates which are intended to be held for sale if closed, the Company enters into agreements to sell loans in the secondary market. At June 30, 2024, the Company had no commitments to sell loans to unrelated investors. Concentrations of Credit The Company primarily grants loans to customers located in the New York State counties of Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Saratoga, and Warren. Although the Company has a diversified loan portfolio, a substantial portion of its debtors’ ability to honor their contracts is dependent upon the real estate and construction-related sectors of the economy. Legal Proceedings and Other Contingent Liabilities In the ordinary course of business, the Company and the Bank are involved in a number of legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations that could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be significant concerning matters arising from the conduct of their business, including the matters described below. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly where the claimants seek large or indeterminate damages, the Company generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters, or eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company will establish an accrued liability when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. The Company’s estimates of potential losses will change over time and the actual losses may vary significantly, and there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. As a matter develops, management, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluate on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable; or where a loss is reasonably possible, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, whether it is possible to estimate a range of possible loss. Once the loss contingency is deemed to be both probable and estimable, the Company establishes an accrued liability and records a corresponding amount of litigation-related expense. The Company continues to monitor the matters for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established. Excluding legal fees and expenses, litigation-related expense of $0 was recognized for the years ended June 30, 2024 and 2023. For those matters for which a loss is reasonably possible and estimable, whether in excess of an accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company’s estimated range of possible loss is $0 to $54.4 million in excess of the accrued liability, if any, as of June 30, 2024. These estimates are based upon currently available information and are subject to significant judgment, a variety of assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the accrued liability and estimated range of possible losses are unpredictable and may change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly from the current estimate and accrual. The estimated range of possible loss does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. Information is provided below regarding the nature of the matters and associated claimed damages. The Company and the Bank are defending each of these matters vigorously, and the Company believes that it and the Bank have substantial defenses, including affirmative defenses, counterclaims and cross-claims to the various allegations that have been asserted. In light of the significant judgment, variety of assumptions and uncertainties involved in the matters described below, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, or matters related to or resulting from the matters described below, could have an adverse material impact on the Company’s business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences. Mann Entities Related Fraudulent Activity During the first fiscal quarter of 2020 (the quarter ended September 30, 2019), the Company became aware of potentially fraudulent activity associated with transactions by an established business customer of the Bank. The customer and various affiliated entities (collectively, the “Mann Entities”) had numerous accounts with the Bank. The transactions in question related both to deposit and lending activity with the Mann Entities. For the fraudulent activity related to the Mann Entities, the Bank’s potential monetary exposure with respect to its deposit activity was approximately $18.5 million. In the first fiscal quarter of 2020, the Bank exercised its rights pursuant to state and federal law and the relevant Mann Entity general deposit account agreements to take actions to set off/recover approximately $16.0 million from general deposit corporate operating accounts held by the Mann Entities at the Bank to partially cover overdrafts/negative account balances in Mann Entity general deposit corporate operating accounts that primarily resulted from another bank returning/calling back $15.6 million in checks on August 30, 2019, that the Mann Entities had deposited into and then withdrawn from their accounts at the Bank the day before. In the first fiscal quarter of 2020, the Bank recognized a charge to non-interest expense in the amount of $2.5 million based on the net negative deposit balance of the various Mann Entities’ accounts after the setoffs/overdraft recoveries. Through June 30, 2024, no additional charges to non-interest expense were recognized related to the deposit transactions with the Mann Entities. With respect to the Bank’s lending activity with the Mann Entities, its potential exposure was approximately $15.8 million (which represents the Bank’s participation interest in the approximately $35.8 million commercial loan relationships for which the Bank is the originating lender). In the fourth fiscal quarter of 2019, the Bank recognized a provision for loan losses in the amount of $15.8 million, related to the charge-off of the entire principal balance owed to the Bank related to the Mann Entities’ commercial loan relationships. During the third fiscal quarter of 2020 and the first fiscal quarter of 2021, the Bank recognized partial recoveries in the amount of $1.7 million and $34,000, respectively, related to the charge-off of the Mann Entities’ commercial loan relationships, which were credited to the allowance for loan losses. Through June 30, 2024, no additional charges to the provision for credit losses and no additional recoveries related to the charge-off of the loans were recognized related to the loan transactions with the Mann Entities. Several other parties and regulatory agencies have asserted claims against the Company and the Bank related to the series of transactions between the Company or the Bank, on the one hand, and the Mann Entities, on the other. The Company and the Bank continue to investigate these matters and it is possible that the Company and the Bank will be subject to similar legal, regulatory, governmental or other proceedings and additional liabilities. The ultimate timing and outcome of any such proceedings, involving the Company, or the Bank, cannot be predicted with any certainty. It also remains possible that other private parties or governmental bodies will pursue existing or additional claims against the Bank as a result of the Bank’s dealings with certain of the Mann Entities or as a result of the actions taken by the Company or the Bank. The Company’s and the Bank’s legal fees and expenses related to these actions are significant and are expected to continue being significant. In addition, costs associated with potentially prosecuting, litigating or settling any litigation, satisfying any adverse judgments, if any, or other proceedings, could be significant. These legal, regulatory, governmental and other proceedings, claims or investigations, costs, settlements, judgments, sanctions or other expenses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business prospects, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows or cause significant reputational harm and subject the Company to face civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other material regulatory consequences. The Company is pursuing all available sources of recovery and other means of mitigating the potential loss, and the Company and the Bank are vigorously defending all claims asserted against them arising out of or otherwise related to the fraudulent activity of the Mann Entities. During the year ended June 30, 2024 and 2023, the Bank recognized insurance recoveries in the amount of $1.2 million and $3.7 million, respectively, related to the partial reimbursement of defense costs incurred as a result of these matters, which were credited to noninterest expense – professional fees on the consolidated statements of operations. Going forward, the Bank does not expect to recognize any such insurance recoveries, as the applicable policy limits and deductibles have been exceeded. For a fuller recitation of the procedural history of each of the matters summarized below, please refer to the Company’s earlier periodic filings on Forms 10-Q and 10-K. The Pioneer Parties (as defined below) vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in each of the matters noted below. Legal Proceedings On October 31, 2019, Southwestern Payroll Services, Inc. (“Southwestern”) filed a complaint against the Company and the Bank (“Pioneer Parties”), Michael T. Mann, Valuewise Corporation, MyPayrollHR, LLC and Cloud Payroll, LLC (collectively, the “Mann Parties”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. On April 10, 2023, the Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting Southwestern leave to file a third amended complaint adding Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. (“Granite Solutions”) as a plaintiff and asserting claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud. Southwestern and Granite Solutions filed the third amended complaint on April 26, 2023. The third amended complaint seeks a monetary judgment of at least $39.0 million, allegedly comprised of compensatory damages in excess of $13.0 million, penalties and interest, treble damages, and punitive damages. The Pioneer Parties filed their answer to the third amended complaint on May 12, 2023. In addition to denying that Southwestern or Granite Solutions is entitled to any of the relief sought in the third amended complaint, the Pioneer Parties asserted numerous affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims against Southwestern and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties for common law fraud under New York law and violations of RICO. The Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of Southwestern and certain of the Mann Parties have resulted in damages to the Pioneer Parties comprised of compensatory damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Pioneer Parties seek to recover these damages jointly and severally against all counterclaim and cross-claim defendants. Southwestern filed its answer to the counterclaims on June 2, 2023. On June 3, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted in the third amended complaint. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to one of the Pioneer Parties’ affirmative defenses and on the counterclaims against Southwestern for violations of RICO. On June 14, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a separate motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the third amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Briefing on the various motions was completed on August 28, 2024, and the motions are now pending before the court for decision. On December 10, 2019, National Payment Corp. (“NatPay”) filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff in Southwestern’s lawsuit against the Pioneer Parties and the Mann Parties as described above. On August 4, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that NatPay be allowed to intervene, which was subsequently accepted by the Court. NatPay filed its complaint in intervention on August 18, 2020. On April 10, 2023, the Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting NatPay leave to file an amended complaint asserting claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud. NatPay filed its amended complaint on April 13, 2023. The amended complaint seeks a monetary judgment of at least $11.4 million, allegedly comprised of compensatory damages in excess of $3.8 million, penalties and interest, treble damages, and punitive damages. The Pioneer Parties filed their answer to NatPay’s amended complaint on May 12, 2023. In addition to denying that NatPay is entitled to any of the relief sought in the third amended complaint, the Pioneer Parties asserted numerous affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims against NatPay and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties for violations of RICO. The Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of NatPay and certain of the Mann Parties have resulted in damages to the Pioneer Parties comprised of compensatory damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Pioneer Parties seek to recover these damages jointly and severally against all counterclaim and cross-claim defendants. On June 23, 2023, NatPay filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims and certain affirmative defenses of the Pioneer Parties. The Pioneer Parties filed their opposition to the motion on July 21, 2023, and the motion was fully briefed and submitted to the Court for decision on August 4, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the Court entered an order granting NatPay’s motion. On January 18, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order and for leave to amend their answer and counterclaims. On April 3, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the Pioneer Parties leave to amend their answer and counterclaims. The Pioneer Parties thereafter filed their amended answer and counterclaims on April 15, 2024. NatPay filed its reply to amended counterclaims on April 29, 2024. On June 3, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted in the amended complaint, as well as a separate motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On the same day, NatPay filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to one of the Pioneer Parties’ affirmative defenses and on the counterclaims against NatPay for violations of RICO. Briefing on the various motions was completed on August 28, 2024, and the motions are now pending before the court for decision. On January 21, 2020, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”), a third-party automated clearing house service provider, filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division (“Bankruptcy Court”). The Bank is not listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings. On January 20, 2022, Cachet filed an adversary proceeding complaint against the Pioneer Parties in the Bankruptcy Court. On February 16, 2023, Cachet filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss. The amended complaint, like the initial complaint, alleges Michael T. Mann stole approximately $26.4 million from Cachet in August 2019 by manipulating Cachet’s “batch file specifications,” and that Mann subsequently caused approximately $8.5 million of those purportedly stolen funds to be deposited into accounts held by companies owned by Mann at Pioneer Bank. Cachet alleges Pioneer Bank refused Cachet’s request to return the approximately $8.5 million in purportedly stolen funds to Cachet. Cachet’s complaint asserts causes of action against the Pioneer Parties for avoidance and recovery of constructive fraudulent transfers, conversion, unjust enrichment, money had and received, violation of California Penal Code § 496(a), violations of RICO, aiding and abetting fraud, and declaratory relief. Cachet asserts “actual damages” of approximately $8.5 million, seeks three times its actual damages on its Section 496(a) claim (or approximately $25.6 million), and costs of suit and attorneys’ fees. Cachet also seeks “treble damages according to proof and attorneys’ fees,” and for its aiding abetting fraud claim, Cachet seeks “general, consequential and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.” On April 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 6, 2023, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Pioneer Parties’ motion. In particular, the Court dismissed Cachet’s claims for violations of RICO, violation of California Penal Code § 496(a), aiding and abetting fraud and conversion, and for declaratory relief. The Court denied the Pioneer Parties’ motion as to the claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The Court permitted Cachet to file a second amended complaint. On September 20, 2023, Cachet filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order. The Pioneer Parties filed their opposition on October 26, 2023, and Cachet filed its reply on November 2, 2023. On November 16, 2023, the Court entered an order granting the motion to the extent of clarifying certain rulings in the September 6, 2023 order relating to the denial of the motion to dismiss as to Cachet’s conversion claim and the dismissal of Cachet’s RICO claim. Cachet initially filed its second amended complaint on February 5, 2024, but pursuant to a stipulation and order entered on February 29, 2024, Cachet withdrew that version of the second amended complaint and filed a revised second amended complaint on April 8, 2024. The second amended complaint asserts claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, money had and received, violations of RICO, and aiding and abetting conversion and fraud. On May 8, 2024, the Pioneer Parties filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Briefing on the motion was completed on June 27, 2024. A hearing on the motion was held by the Court on July 11, 2024. On August 28, 2024, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Pioneer Parties’ motion. In particular, the court dismissed with prejudice Cachet’s claims for aiding and abetting conversion and fraud and dismissed without prejudice Cachet’s RICO claims. The court denied the Pioneer Parties’ motion to dismiss the claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The Pioneer Parties’ current deadline to respond to the remaining claims asserted in the second amended complaint is October 10, 2024. On February 4, 2020, Berkshire Hills Bancorp Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary Berkshire Bank (“Berkshire Bank”) filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County resulting from Berkshire Bank’s participation interest in the commercial loan relationship to the Mann Entities. The complaint alleges that the Bank breached the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of June 27, 2018, breached the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of August 12, 2019, engaged in constructive fraud, engaged in fraudulent inducement, engaged in fraudulent concealment, and negligently misrepresented certain material information. The complaint seeks to recover $15.6 million and additional damages. On November 30, 2022, Berkshire Bank filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims to those asserted in the original complaint, except that it excised the claim for negligent misrepresentation that the Court previously had dismissed, and included claims for breach of the loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of June 29, 2017 and separate claims for fraudulent inducement with respect to each of the three loan participation agreements. On January 30, 2023, the Bank filed its answer to the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Berkshire Bank for breach of the amended and restated loan participation agreement between the Bank and Berkshire Bank dated as of August 12, 2019, as well as a claim for a declaratory judgment that Berkshire Bank ratified the agreement and may not contest its validity. This matter is currently in discovery. On February 4, 2020, Chemung Financial Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, Chemung Canal Trust Company (“Chemung”), filed a complaint against the Bank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County resulting from Chemung’s participation interest in the commercial loan relationship to the Mann Entities. The complaint alleges that the Bank breached the participation agreement between the Bank and Chemung dated as of August 12, 2019, engaged in fraudulent activities, engaged in constructive fraud, and negligently misrepresented and omitted certain material information. The complaint seeks to recover $4.2 million and additional damages. On July 21, 2023, Chemung filed an amended complaint that asserts the same causes of actions as the original complaint (except that it excised the claim for negligent misrepresentation previously dismissed by the Court), but includes additional factual allegations. On September 19, 2023, the Bank filed its answer to the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Chemung for breach of the loan participation agreement between the Bank and Chemung dated as of August 12, 2019, as well as a claim for a declaratory judgment that Chemung ratified the agreement and may not contest its validity. This matter is currently in discovery. On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), with the authorization of a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, filed a civil complaint against the Company and the Bank (and Cloud Payroll, LLC) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully set off approximately $7.3 million from an account held by Cloud Payroll to apply towards debts allegedly owed to the Bank by Cloud Payroll and other affiliates of Michael Mann. The complaint alleges that the funds in question were comprised of payroll taxes and thus subject to a statutory trust under 26 U.S.C. § 7501 that prohibited the Bank from setting off those funds to apply towards debts owed to the Bank. The complaint seeks return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. On October 21, 2020, the DOJ filed an amended complaint that dropped one of the DOJ’s claims against the Pioneer Parties but continues to seek return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. The amended complaint relates to the same set of facts described above in “Mann Entities Related Fraudulent Activity”, and the alleged payroll taxes, plus interest, sought in this proceeding may be part of the recovery sought in the Southwestern and NatPay complaints described above. On November 4, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the DOJ’s amended complaint. On November 15, 2023, the Court entered an order staying discovery until January 16, 2024 to allow the parties to continue discussions about a potential resolution of the matter. On January 12, 2024, the parties filed a joint letter with the Court requesting an extension of the discovery stay until March 18, 2024 to enable the parties to finalize resolution of the matter. On January 16, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the requested extension. On March 15, 2024, after reaching a confidential settlement agreement, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the action with prejudice, which the Court approved on March 18, 2024. On August 31, 2020, AXH Air-Coolers, LLC (“AXH”) filed a complaint against the Pioneer Parties, and unnamed employees of the Pioneer Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully converted certain tax funds belonging to AXH, were unjustly enriched by the wrongful taking of tax funds belonging to AXH, and were grossly negligent in allowing AXH’s tax funds to be misappropriated, offset, converted, or stolen. The prayer for relief in AXH’s complaint seeks $336,000, plus penalties and interest, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. The complaint relates to the same set of facts as the DOJ complaint as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints. On August 12, 2022, AXH filed an amended complaint asserting gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and accounting claims against the Pioneer Parties. The amended complaint seeks the same relief as in the original complaint. On August 26, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer to the amended complaint. Thereafter, discovery on the matter proceeded until the Court issued a stay of the action on June 30, 2024. The stay is expected to be in effect until at least December 20, 2024. On December 1, 2020, the Bank filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Teal, Becker & Chiaramonte, CPAs, P.C. (“TBC”), Mr. Pasquale M. Scisci and Mr. Vincent Commisso (collectively, with TBC, the “TBC Parties”), alleging professional malpractice by the TBC Parties in auditing the annual consolidated financial statements of Valuewise Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Valuewise Entities”) for the fiscal years 2010 to 2018. The Bank asserts that the TBC Parties were aware that the primary, if not the exclusive, reason the Valuewise Entities engaged TBC to audit their financial statements was to provide the Bank with accurate financial information that the Bank would rely on in evaluating whether to provide loans to the Valuewise Entities. The Bank contends that, among other matters, Mr. Michael Mann used the Valuewise Entities to defraud the Bank because of the professional malpractice of the TBC Parties and that if the TBC Parties had not committed professional malpractice by issuing unqualified “clean” opinions on the financial statements of the Valuewise Entities for fiscal years 2010 to 2018, the Bank would never have continued loaning money to the Valuewise Entities. The Bank seeks to recover damages of at least $34.1 million (plus interest) sustained by it as a result of the professional malpractice of the TBC Parties. The TBC Parties filed their answer to the Bank’s complaint on February 12, 2021. On February 28, 2022, the TBC Parties filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 4, 2022, the Court entered a decision and order denying the motion in its entirety. On November 15, 2023, the Bank and the TBC Parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to resolve and settle all disputes and potential claims which exist or may exist among |
