Beacon Financial Corp 10-K

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS As of December 31, 2021, neither the Company nor the Bank was involved in any pending legal proceedings believed by management to be material to the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. Periodically, there have been various claims and lawsuits involving the Bank, such as claims to enforce liens, condemnation proceedings on properties in which the Bank holds security interests, claims involving the making and servicing of real property loans, and other issues incident to the Bank’s business. A summary of certain legal matters involving unsettled litigation or pertaining to pending transactions are as follows: On February 4, 2020, the Bank filed a complaint in the New York State Supreme Court for the County of Albany against Pioneer Bank (“Pioneer”) seeking damages of approximately $16.0 million. The complaint alleges that Pioneer is liable to the Bank for a credit loss of approximately $16.0 million suffered by the Bank in the third quarter of 2019 as a result of Pioneer’s breach of loan participation agreements in which it served as the lead bank, as well as constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment and/or negligent misrepresentation. Pioneer has filed a motion to dismiss aspects of the Bank’s complaint, which motion was allowed in part by the court to dismiss the Bank’s negligent misrepresentation claim, and denied in part by the court to allow all other claims by the Bank to proceed. Discovery is now underway in this action. The Company wrote down the underlying credit loss in its entirety in the third quarter of 2019, but recognized a partial recovery of $1.7 million early in the second quarter of 2020. The Company has not accrued for any additional anticipated recovery at this time. On September 11, 2020, the Company received notice of a demand letter served on the Company and the Bank by a former mortgagee of the Bank pursuant to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L Ch. 93A (“Chapter 93A). The demand letter alleges that a mortgage payoff statement tendered by the Bank to the mortgagee included a mortgage discharge preparation fee that is purportedly impermissible under Massachusetts law. The demand letter also claims that the Bank failed to provide a copy of the recorded mortgage discharge to the mortgagee in a timely manner. The demand letter further purports to state claims on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Massachusetts mortgage customers of the Bank, who allegedly may have suffered similar violations of Massachusetts law. The demand letter seeks monetary damages for the original mortgagee claimant and the putative class, plus double or treble damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as may be allowed under Chapter 93A. The Company and the Bank have retained outside litigation counsel in this matter, and discussions have proceeded between the parties to find a mutually acceptable resolution. On July 28, 2021, a class action complaint was filed by the original 93A claimant against the Bank in the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County, pursuant to a pre-negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the parties. In accordance with the MOU, the parties have filed and the court has preliminarily approved a settlement agreement, under which the Bank expects to pay damages of approximately $510,000 in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims that have been or could have been asserted in the filed class action lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff and all putative settlement class members, plus certain costs for administration of the class action settlement and legal fees incurred by the named plaintiff up to the amount of $85,000. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18, 2021 and set a hearing date for final approval. The settlement administrator issued notice to class members shortly after preliminary approval, informing them of the settlement and of the opportunity to object. No objections were received prior to the objection deadline set by the court. On February 23, 2022, the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement and dismissed this action with prejudice accordingly. On or about August 10, 2020, a former employee of the Bank’s subsidiary First Choice Loan Services Inc. (“FCLS”) filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County Pennsylvania against FCLS and two of its former senior corporate officers generally alleging wrongful termination as a result of purported whistleblower retaliation and other violations of New Jersey state employment law. The complaint also purports to name the Bank and the Company as additional defendants, even though neither entity ever employed, paid wages to or contracted with the plaintiff. On November 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint reiterating the same claims against the same defendants. The Company's liability insurer has provided outside litigation counsel to defend the Company and the Bank in this matter, as well as FCLS and its former senior corporate officers. On December 7, 2020, defense counsel filed Preliminary Objections on behalf of the Company, the Bank, FCLS and FCLS’s former senior corporate officers denying the plaintiff’s claims and seeking dismissal of the case and an order that the plaintiff’s claims must proceed through arbitration in accordance with contractual obligations set forth in plaintiff’s previous employment agreement with FCLS. On June 30, 2021, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice in support of FCLS’s petition to compel arbitration. The parties are preparing for arbitration proceedings that are expected to occur in the first half of 2022. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES Not Applicable. 37 Table of Contents PART II